Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Edinburgh College of Art, presented by Mr. Maclay; read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 14th July; and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Iron Works, Cargo Fleet

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if he will ask the Iron and Steel Board to report to him on the provision of additional production facilities at Normanby Iron Works, Cargo Fleet, in order to maintain full employment at those works.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): No, Sir. The Board has already informed my noble Friend that no additional facilities are proposed at these works.

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these works are owned by the Steel Agency? Could he say why all proposals that have been submitted for the modernisation of this plant have been turned down in recent years? Is it not possible that the Iron and Steel Board is deliberately allowing the plant to run down in order to give assistance to the works' principal privately-owned competitors that manufacture the same product?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman should not allow his suspicions to run

away with him. I must say that the decisions at issue, which are the relevant issues, on this matter of reconstruction are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for my noble Friend the Minister of Power.

Mr. Palmer: But the Paymaster-General will understand that I have good reason to be suspicious because this affects the employment of my constituents. Is he aware that 400 to 500 of them are affected?

Mr. Maudling: I am aware of the employment position, but doubtful of the suspicions.

Gas Supplies (North Midlands—Home Counties)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what recent advice he has received from the Gas Council on its plans to pipe gas from the North Midlands to the Home Counties, in relation to schemes of high pressure carbonisation which are subject to his approval.

Mr. Maudling: The Gas Council is examining the problems involved in transmitting gas over long distances, but is not yet in a position to lay any definite conclusions before my noble Friend.

Mr. Roberts: Would it not be as cheap to convey gas by the method outlined in the Question as it is to convey electriciity from the Midlands to the Home Counties?

Mr. Maudling: There are very considerable possibilities in the long-distance conveyance of gas, and they are being studied by the Gas Council; but it would be unwise to make any predictions until we have the benefit of the Council's findings.

Gas and Electricity (Capital and Loans)

Mr. Darling: asked the Paymaster-General what is the total sum paid in interest on capital and loans by the Gas Council and gas boards in the 10 years, 1949 to 1958.

Mr. Maudling: About £120 million.

Mr. Darling: Would not the Paymaster-General agree that this industry is expanding, that it is flourishing, that


it is in a very satisfactory financial position? Can he, therefore, tell us what the Prime Minister meant when he said in this House a short time ago that this industry was not paying its way?

Mr. Maudling: I do not know the reference which the hon. Gentleman makes. The fact is that the gas industry is having a stiff fight with competition from other fuel industries. We all hope it will be successful. That is why, among other things, we encourage many of its experiments, which seem rather unpopular on the benches opposite.

Mr. Darling: asked the Paymaster-General what is the total sum paid in interest on capital and loans by the Electricity Authority and the electricity boards in the 10 years 1949 to 1958.

Mr. Maudling: About £340 million, excluding the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board since it was constituted in 1955.

Mr. Darling: It is a far from negligible figure. Would the Paymaster-General agree that the electricity supply industry is very progressive and very well managed and obviously in a good financial position? As he and his noble Friend have a responsibility for these industries, may I ask whether either he or his noble Friend or both protested when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made those untruthful observations on the industries for which they have responsibility?

Mr. Maudling: Once again, I do not know the reference which the hon. Gentleman makes. The fact is that the electricity industry is doing a good job, but to go into a complete analysis of the comparative strengths and the comparative weaknesses of this and the other nationalised industries at Question Time would not be very easy.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite use such words to describe the coal industry when its productivity is higher than it has ever been, what words would they have used to describe its condition in the 'thirties?

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend explain to right hon. and hon.

Gentlemen opposite that there is no business in the world which does not have to pay interest or dividends or both upon its issued capital? Why should the nationalised industries be an exception in that regard?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not quite clear from the Answers which the right hon. Gentleman has now given to these Questions that all the nationalised industries referred to have not only paid in full their debts to the Government but have met all their commitments to the previous owners of the property?

Mr. Maudling: The fact is that with the assistance of the Government guarantee they have, of course, obtained their capital at lower rates than they would have done without the Government guarantee.

Mr. Darling: In view of the unsatisfactory Answers, I give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Oil (Stocks)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Paymaster-General to what extent stocks of oil intended for use other than by Govern-Departments are being built up; and how much of the expenditure involved will fall on public funds.

Mr. Maudling: Stocks of oil available for Government and for general civil use are increasing. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the levels reached or projected, but the bulk of the cost does not fall on public funds.

Mr. Fitch: Would not the Minister agree that this is another example of Government policy in tipping the scales in favour of oil? Why should the Coal Board be responsible for the cost of stocking coal while the Government are apparently going to be responsible for the cost of stocking oil for private enterprise?

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman, studies what I said, he will realise that his supplementary question is quite wrong.

Mr. E. Shinwell: This is rather surprising. Are we to understand that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, cannot disclose information about the piling up


of oil stocks is for security reasons? Has that any bearing on the position of the National Coal Board and on the consumption of coal? Are we building up oil stocks and using more oil and encouraging more oil to be used for security reasons?

Mr. Maudling: I answered the Question as best I could. I said that I could not give the actual figures of coal stocks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oil."]—for reasons of national security which are well-known to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend resist the implication that the changeover from coal to oil is due to some act of the Government and has no relation at all to international developments in industry and science?

Mr. Maudling: I should have thought that we had said enough to make anyone except the Opposition believe that anything like that was responsible for the change-over.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The Minister made a Freudian slip and used the word "coal" when he meant "oil"

Mr. Speaker: I think it was a slip of the tongue.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. Are we to understand that the Government disclaim any responsibility for the further use of oil by electricity stations or in other fashion for security reasons? Is that the position of the Government? If that is so, how can the Government disclaim responsibility.

Mr. Maudling: The Question I was asked was about stocks of oil. I said it was not in the national interest to disclose the size of stocks. It is perfectly clear why we need stocks of oil, as we do food. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the Defence Department and knows why the figures should not be given.

Mr. Neal: As the Government spokesman has informed us that £6 million of public money has been provided for extra stocks of oil, is the House not entitled to know what it is getting for its money?

Mr. Maudling: The capital expenditure on a number of things, including

oil storage and distribution facilities, is published in the Ministry of Power Vote, Class IX, Vote 6.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Smokeless Fuel

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Paymaster-General what progress has been made in producing a processed smokeless fuel from coal dust and small coal other than anthracite; and to what extent such a fuel will be available for industry and the domestic consumer in the near future.

Mr. Maudling: Besides having increased supplies of "Warmco" for sale, the National Coal Board hopes to have two new processed smokeless fuels ready for testing on the domestic market in the winter of 1960–61. As small coal can be burned virtually without smoke in suitably equipped industrial plants, there is not the same need to produce a smokeless processed fuel for this purpose.

Mr. Philips Price: In view of the continued stocking of coal, will the Minister press on the Board the need for a solution of this question at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think any pressure on the Board is called for, as it is doing a very good job here.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that we have the best anthracite in the world and that anthracite is smokeless. Would he not agree that, as part of the campaign to get more smokeless fuel, every encouragement should be given to increase the production of anthracite?

Mr. Maudling: The Question referred to coal other than anthracite.

Nationalised Industries (Report)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what action he has taken to put into effect the several recommendations of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in relation to the National Coal Board.

Mr. Maudling: Information about the action taken on the recommendations of the Report is given in Chapter VI of the Report of the National Coal Board for 1958.

Mr. Palmer: Is it not a fact that if the recommendations of the Select Committee, particularly in the matter of commercial independence for the Coal Board, were fully carried into effect, it would tremendously help the Board in the present situation? Should not the Government, therefore, pay greater attention than hitherto to the Report of the Select Committee, particularly as it was a unanimously agreed all-party Report?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir, I cannot accept that. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind, as I think he has, the gentleman's agreement on the present policy for coal prices, the Committee did not object to that policy. It wanted to make it stiffer, statutory rather than informal.

Mr. Ernest Davies: What action are the Government taking in respect of the gentleman's agreement? Are they acting on the Report or are they not?

Mr. Maudling: I have made it clear in Answers on more than one occasion that we cannot accept that recommendation. We think that the present gentleman's agreement is, on balance, better for all concerned.

Capital and Loans

Mr. Darling: asked the Paymaster-General how much the National Coal Board has paid to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Power and the Treasury in interest on capital and loans in the 10 years 1949 to 1958.

Mr. Maudling: About £200 million.

Mr. Darling: As this is not a negligible figure, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is usually left out of account when Ministers are commenting on our nationalised industries? Further, can he tell us what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant when he said only a week ago that this industry was in a mess, in view of the fact that it is not only in a good financial situation but that British miners produce the cheapest coal in Europe and have the highest output per man-shift?

Mr. Maudling: I think that any figures which were published about the success of an industry and which omitted the capital charges involved would be quite unrealistic.

Generating Stations

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General how many electricity generating stations are equipped with dual-firing apparatus; and what is the coal equivalent in oil now being consumed at these stations.

Mr. Maudling: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on 22nd June. In the first 24 weeks of this year these stations consumed oil equivalent to approximately 2·7 million tons of coal.

Mr. Neal: In view of the extreme difficulties the coal industry is experiencing and in view of the highly prosperous oil industry, will the right hon. Gentleman give directions that these stations should all be turned over to coal burning?

Mr. Maudling: As I said before, the Government would not give directions to any nationalised industry to break commercial contracts.

Mr. Blyton: asked the Paymaster-General to what extent he has given general directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding their future plans for coal burning; and what is the possibility of the Central Electricity Generating Board's increasing their annual consumption of coal during the next 10 years.

Mr. Maudling: No general directions have been given to the Board on this subject. The Board is confident, however, that its consumption of coal should increase substantially during the next ten years.

Mr. Blyton: Can we take it, therefore, that in future the Government will not force the Central Electricity Generating Board to burn oil?

Mr. Maudling: I think that all we have said recently about coal and oil should make the Government's position very clear in these matters.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that the policies of both the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board are in no way governed by restrictions imposed by the present Government but by the terms of the Act passed by the Labour Government?

Mr. Maudling: The real root of the problem is that only a short time ago there was very little prospect of obtaining enough coal to meet our requirements for electricity generation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Paymaster-General what estimate he received from the Central Electricity Generating Board of the compensation which would be payable to the oil companies for the cancellation of their present contracts for oil for their power stations, before the Government decided not to instruct the Board to cancel these contracts.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Paymaster-General think that it would be desirable to know how much the compensation would be so that he could consider whether it would not be right to give a direction to the Electricity Generating Board to use coal where that is economic?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. It would be quite wrong for the Government to contemplate giving directions to a nationalised industry to cancel commercial contracts.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there was no pressure from the Government on the Board to turn over to oil?

Mr. Maudling: I am talking about commercial contracts. I said that it would be quite wrong for the Government to consider directing a nationalised industry to break a contract. The main reason why the Government were anxious to see more oil consumed a few years ago was that it was not possible for the coal industry to supply the coal which appeared to be necessary.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Then I understand from that answer that the Government did bring pressure to bear on the Board to turn over to oil. That being so, would it not be equally right in the national interest for them now to tell the Board that it had better use coal instead?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman cannot really take that from my answer. He has put down a Question about the cancellation of existing

contracts. If he wants information about what happened in the past, perhaps he will put down a Question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Paymaster-General? Is it not a fact that the Government did bring pressure to bear on the Board to use oil?

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Paymaster-General whether he is aware that the cost of fuel oil imported from abroad in the year 1958 was £37,208,547, and that it is estimated that the cost in 1959 will be considerably increased; and, in view of the heavy drain which this involves on the national reserves of foreign exchange, what general direction he intends to give to the Central Electricity Generating Board to reduce their present consumption of fuel oil.

Mr. Maudling: The oil industry must be viewed as a whole, and as such it makes a very substantial contribution every year to our balance of payments.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is not the increasing use of fuel oil for purposes which could be equally well served by coal a very heavy drain on foreign exchange which ought to be avoided?

Mr. Maudling: If coal can equally well be used, I cannot see why oil is taking its place. We must look at the thing as a whole, and the cost paid for importing oil is small compared with the enormous gains of foreign exchange by our international oil companies.

Sulphur Dioxide

Mr. Fitch: asked the Paymaster-General to what extent research experiments have shown that greater quantities of sulphur dioxide are given off from oil burning than from coal burning.

Mr. Maudling: The amount of sulphur dioxide released by any given operation depends both upon the type and upon the quantity of the coal or oil that is used. As the sulphur content of both fuels varies widely according to type and as the quantity required depends upon the type selected, there can be no general answer to the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Fitch: Surely the Paymaster-General is evading the Question? Is it not a fact that the ratio of sulphur dioxide given out from coal burning and oil burning is one to one and a half? In view of that, will he consider restricting the use of oil in smokeless zone areas?

Mr. Maudling: My Answer was given on the basis of the best scientific advice to which I have access. I think the hon. Member will find it to be the most accurate Answer that can be given.

Employment

Mr. Blyton: asked the Paymaster-General to what extent Her Majesty's Government, in framing their policy of freedom of consumer choice, have made allowance for possible loss of livelihood of miners; and if he will bring before the House a plan to meet this contingency.

Mr. Maudling: The Government take full account of all relevant considerations in their fuel policy.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Paymaster-General aware that there is deep anxiety in the coalfields because the livelihood of many is threatened and that when the 1960 programme comes out the industry is bound to contract? Will he tell us whether the Government intend to find work for those people who will be casualties of the Government's policy?

Mr. Maudling: I recognise, of course, that there is anxiety, but I would ask the hon. Member to await the presentation of the National Coal Board's new plan. I think that to make any comments on the future before that would be a mistake. In the meantime, I think it is a mistake to be too pessimistic about the future of the coal industry. The Government are not.

Mr. Robens: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an approximate idea when the plan will be published? Will it be when the House is in Recess?

Mr. Maudling: I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking about that. The plan is pretty close to completion now.

Mr. Robens: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations about it to the National Coal Board so that the plan may be published before the House goes into Recess and we can have an

opportunity to discuss it, otherwise we shall probably have no opportunity to discuss the plan before events of immense importance may take place in the mining areas?

Mr. Maudling: The Coal Board is not the only party concerned. It has to have quite a number of consultations, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. I think it would be a great mistake to rush things ahead at the cost of not fully consulting all concerned before the plan is finalised.

Stocking Capacity

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General what steps have been taken to ascertain total maximum stocking capacity for distributed and undistributed coals; and, as total stocks now exceed 40 million tons, what maximum potential stocking capacity is available before further curtailment of coal production becomes necessary.

Mr. Maudling: Whilst the provision of facilities for holding undistributed stocks has given rise to problems, the National Coal Board does not anticipate that lack of stocking capacity will determine the level of coal production. The stocks at present held by coal consumers are well below the limits of their stocking capacity.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that when the National Coal Board's revised plan is published it will contain some reference to what is considered by the Board to be the maximum stocking capacity available both in physical terms and in financial terms? Has my right hon. Friend observed that the present total level of distributed and undistributed stocks is nearly 42 million tons? Ought we to go higher than 50 million tons or, roughly, a calendar quarter's supply of coal in stock?

Mr. Maudling: I have no doubt that that consideration will be very much in the mind of the National Coal Board in formulating its new plan.

Oil Conversion

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General what increase, or otherwise, has taken place during the first six months of 1959, compared with the equivalent


period of 1958, in industrial and commercial consumption, respectively, of coal and fuel oil; and whether the trend and rate of conversion of industrial and commercial fuel-burning plants from coal to oil is accelerating this year or decelerating.

Mr. Maudling: In the first 21 weeks of 1959 the large industrial consumers required to make fuel returns used 1,610 thousand tons less coal and 330 thousand tons more fuel oil than a year ago. Conversions from coal to oil among these consumers were fewer in number and smaller in volume of fuel usage in the first three months of this year than a year ago. Similar information is not available about commercial consumers.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend read the well-informed article in the Sunday Observer yesterday, entitled "Jeremiah in I.C.I.", and the most important reference therein by the chairman-elect of I.C.I., Mr. S. P. Chambers, to greater sustenance for coal burning in industry by the slowing up of the coal to oil conversion programme? May I commend that article to my right hon. Friend for his bedtime reading tonight?

Mr. Maudling: I did not see the Observer yesterday, but had I known it would be dignified by my hon. Friend's commendation today I would have hastened to buy a copy.

Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that imported fuel oil is being stored at less price than crude oil and that coal just cannot compete with with the dumping of imported fuel? Is he going to allow this to continue entirely unchecked?

Mr. Maudling: I have often heard this allegation of dumping, but I have not yet seen evidence of it. I do not believe it is taking place.

House Coal

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General how much of the aggregate 40 million tons of coal in distributed and undistributed stocks is house coal; and whether he is satisfied that efficient steps are being taken to assure adequate supplies of house coal for next winter, well deployed, spread and stocked among merchants, and in a fashion to prevent

local shortages even in severe winter weather conditions.

Mr. Maudling: About 2½ million tons is suitable, including some 900,000 tons held by merchants. Distribution is a matter for the National Coal Board and the trade, but consumers could help a great deal by buying their coal early.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that 2½ million tons of house coal in stock at present, out of a total stock of 42½ million tons is a very small percentage, and will he make quite sure that householders everywhere are not lulled into a sense of false security of mind, by imagining that this huge surplus of coal is house coal when, in fact, the overwhelming bulk of it is industrial coal unsuitable for house use?

Mr. Maudling: The National Coal Board and the trade are doing all possible to persuade people to take coal in the summer months when distribution is easier, and the more they do so the better.

Mr. Darling: To get the stock position in perspective, would it not be right to point out that most of the stock consists of small coal coming out of the screens and that one must have the small coal if one is to produce the large coal for which there is still an adequate market?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the hon. Member is supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) when he said that the proportion of large coal in stock is fairly small.

Mr. Nabarro: I am the best friend that Sir James Bowman has in the House.

Stocks

Mr. Warbey: asked the Paymaster-General what were the amount of undistributed coal stocks at the latest date for which figures are available; and what proportion of these stocks were in the East Midlands Division.

Mr. Maudling: 27·5 million tons at 20th June, 1959, of which 8·9 million tons are in the East Midlands Division.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coal is flowing like lava on every square yard of ground around some of these collieries in my constituency and in the constituencies of many


other hon. Members, and that we are well beyond the limit which the Government accepted last November of 22 million tons? As this situation cannot go on, will the Government accept that this is a matter to be dealt with as an emergency and not one of which they can wash their hands?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the hon. Member is exaggerating the situation. Certainly stocks are very large, but the measures which the Coal Board is taking are the best that can be taken in the circumstances to deal with the problem.

Pits (Closures)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Paymaster-General whether having regard to the prospect of further pit closures in 1960 and subsequent years, he will introduce legislation to enable grants to be paid to the National Coal Board to provide wholly, or in part, for the payment of adequate compensation to miners made redundant by such closures.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. Miners rendered unemployed by pit closures are entitled to benefits under the National Unemployment Insurance Scheme and the National Coal Board's Scheme of Compensation for Redundant Mineworkers.

Mr. Warbey: Whilst agreeing that the Coal Board has been very generous so far to redundant miners, may I ask whether we are not approaching a very serious situation? Would it not be well to prepare for it well in advance? Have the Government considered the possibility of doing for publicly-owned industry what they have been prepared to do for a number of privately-owned industries, from cotton to shipping?

Mr. Maudling: I thought that cotton would appear in the supplementary question, but on examination it will be seen that there is a considerable difference between the two industries. The hon. Member, as I said, is rather exaggerating the difficulties which lie ahead of the coal industry.

Exports (Prices)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board on the pricing of coal for the export market.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Paymaster-General realise that more flexibility must be given to the Board if it is hoped to enter foreign markets again in the selling of coal? Does the right hon. Gentleman further appreciate that many of us on this side of the House are anxious to see our export markets develop to the extent that they did pre-war?

Mr. Maudling: I accept what the hon. Member says. Both sides of the House are extremely anxious to see an extension of our coal exports, but the Board has already complete freedom in export pricing.

Mr. Robens: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether or not he is including coal as one of the factors in bilateral agreements between this country and other countries?

Mr. Maudling: Bilateral agreements are much fewer than they were, but my noble Friend the Minister of Power has called the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the need to sell all the coal that we can.

Mr. Robens: That is not the answer to the question. Has the right hon. Gentleman raised this subject of coal in bilateral negotiations which have recently taken place?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman put that Question to the President of the Board of Trade. My noble Friend has made it clear to the President of the Board of Trade, who is well aware of it, that is is desirable to sell as much coal as possible, partly by bilateral agreements.

Mr. P. Noel-Barker: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he is not aware whether the President of the Board of Trade has raised this matter or not?

Mr. Maudling: The point is that I cannot answer questions on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) never answered on behalf of the Board of Trade.

Mining Industry (Future)

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board recently regarding the future of the coalmining industry.

Mr. Ainslcy: asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board regarding the future of the coalmining industry with regard to a new coal policy.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a previous Question he said that it would be a great mistake to hurry things? Is it not apparent that the time has come when he should hurry matters and let the Board know what the Government decide so that it can get on with the policy for the coming year?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, but we must not hurry things to the extent of damaging or avoiding consultations which are desirable in this situation.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no possibility of damaging anything by hurrying matters? Is he not aware that not only the national economy but the mining industry has everything to lose by this delay?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that one should go on as fast as possible but not so fast that one falls over one's own feet.

Mr. Ross: There is no danger of that with this Government.

Mr. Owen: asked the Paymaster-General if he will now make a statement on the long-term policy of Her Majesty's Government for the mining industry taking into account the period 1959 to 1961.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I do not consider that a statement would be appropriate in advance of the National Coal Board's proposals for the future development of the industry.

Mr. Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of his party has made a statement concerning a proposal to decentralise control within the

mining industry? Is that part of Government policy and can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement accordingly?

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the matter last week.

Prices

Mr. B. Taylor: asked the Paymaster-General what recent consultation the National Coal Board has had with his Department regarding the flexibility of prices; and what consideration has been given to it.

Mr. Maudling: There is frequent consultation between the Ministry and the National Coal Board on prices, as on other subjects. On price flexibility, I cannot add to what I said in reply to a number of hon. Members on 22nd June.

Human and Medical Problems (Research)

Mr. Slater: asked the Paymaster-General if he will list the 12 projects of research on human and medical problems within the coalmining industry and state which of these are receiving Government assistance.

Mr. Maudling: Details of their research programme are a matter for the National Coal Board. Government Departments are co-operating in projects dealing with mortality and sickness statistics and pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Slater: Is that the only project that the right hon. Gentleman can cite today? Is he aware that in reply to my Question last week he mentioned 12 projects, hence this Question seeking further information about what is being done? Has the right hon. Gentleman not yet reached a position in which he can give the necessary information?

Mr. Maudling: In these matters I must have regard to the constitutional position of the Coal Board. I am not trying to be difficult on this, but the Board settles its research programme subject to the general approval of the Minister. Therefore, I can only answer about the generalities. I will ask the Board to provide the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Working Hours

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the average number of hours worked per week by all mineworkers, surface and underground, during the first six months of 1959, as compared with a similar period in 1958.

Mr. Finch: asked the Paymaster-General if he will give the average number of hours worked per week by all underground workers in the mining industry during the first six months of 1958 and 1959.

Mr. Pentland: asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the average number of hours worked per week by all surface workers in the mining industry during the first half of this year, as compared with the first half of 1958.

Mr. Sylvester: asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the average number of hours worked by coalface workers in the coalmining industry during the first six months of 1958 and 1959.

Mr. Maudling: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not a pity that the information is not available? Is it not a fact that with less overtime and no weekend work there has been a big reduction in wages? Should not the Government do something to bring down the cost of living in view of the fact that wages are now considerably reduced?

Mr. Maudling: I think that comment goes rather wider than the Question. I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asked is not available.

Mr. Neal: Is the right hon. Gentleman confessing that his statistical department cannot provide these figures? Surely, they are placed on his table weekly?

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry to argue with the hon. Member, who knows so much about these things. The statistics are provided in terms of shifts, and I gather that there is no common factor whereby one can convert shifts into hours of work.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that hours of work

underground are determined by Act of Parliament and that his Ministry is responsible for the Act being observed? Is no return made to his Department of overtime worked above the statutory hours? Could the right hon. Gentleman not supply the figures?

Mr. Maudling: That is a different question. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put that question down I should be glad to try to answer it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The question asked about the average number of hours worked underground. I appreciate that the matter of hours worked on the surface is quite different, but underground hours are governed by Act of Parliament, for which the right hon. Gentleman's Department is responsible, and that is why I asked him for the figures.

Mr. Maudling: The available statistics for which the question asked are kept in terms of shifts and not of hours. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I think that we can do no better than we have done.

Mr. Sylvester: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question definitely dealt with coal-face workers and not surface workers?

Mr. Maudling: I gather that the answer is the same—that statistics have been kept in shifts and not in hours of work.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a shift in the coalmining industry means a precise number of hours worked as defined by Act of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman gets information about the number of shifts he can clearly answer a question about the number of hours. Are we to understand that his Department does not receive from the Coal Board a report on the number of hours of overtime worked in the coal mines beyond the statutory number?

Mr. Maudling: I made precisely the same inquiry as the right hon. Gentleman now mentions and I was surprised that the information was not available. I am told that no suitable multiplier can be applied to shift work as the length of shift can differ from area to area, and also some tasks are done in stints and when a stint is done miners may leave


the pit although the actual shift has not been fulfilled. One has not, therefore, information about hours worked. If hon. Members want answers to these other questions, perhaps they will put them down and I shall be happy to answer them.

Mr. D. Griffiths: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the mater on the Adjournment.

Research

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Paymaster-General to what extent his Department, apart from the specific work undertaken by the National Coal Board is developing or furthering research into the uses of coal, particularly as a source of chemicals.

Mr. Maudling: As the hon. Member will be aware, this question is under examination by the Wilson Committee. In the meantime, experimental and development work, and work on design studies, is being pressed forward by the Ministry in conjunction with the Gas Council, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the British Coal Utilisation Research Association and private industry.

Mr. Edwards: Can this work be expedited, since we are still importing vast supplies of chemicals which can be produced from British surplus coal? Has the Paymaster-General considered the Charles Turner project whereby coal is boiled for the extraction of chemical by-products and from which process, it is claimed, will flow power as cheap as water?

Mr. Maudling: My noble Friend recognises the need for speed in this matter, and it was with that thought in mind that he appointed the Wilson Committee. I shall make sure that the Wilson Committee's attention is drawn to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of turnover is spent on research into the uses of coal, and does he regard it as satisfactory?

Mr. Maudling: I could not say without notice.

Fuel Requirements

Mr. Mason: asked the Paymaster-General if he will break down the estimated fuel requirement figure of 310 million tons of coal equivalent which will be needed by 1965 into the separate tons of coal equivalent to be supplied by each of the United Kingdom's fuel industries.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. Future demand for each form of energy will depend on its relative competitive position.

Mr. Mason: Since the Paymaster-General has repeatedly stated in the House that by 1965 we shall require 310 million tons of coal equivalent, and since in our last debate he repeated that statement and said that there was every assurance that it would be achieved, will he tell us the constituent parts of that total and particularly what part coal will play?

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the original speech, he will see exactly what I said and why I cannot give the constituent parts.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman has already admitted that there have been consultations with the National Coal Board on this matter. Since a re-assessment must have been made, why can he not tell us what the re-assessment envisages for 1965 and particularly what part coal will play in producing that total figure?

Mr. Maudling: Once again, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what I said in 1957 about the total demand for energy and the possible competition between various sources of energy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the availability of the Coal Board's views about its future prospects.

Mr. Mason: asked the Paymaster-General what annual rate of economic expansion he had in mind in arriving at his estimate of 310 million tons of coal equivalent by 1965.

Mr. Maudling: Three per cent. a year increase in the national income.

Mr. Mason: That sounds very much like what we intend to do. Is not the first requirement for this figure to be achieved a change of Government, or


are we once more to see raging inflation followed by a period of recession with coal slumped into its present position again?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have been looking at the recent facts of the economic situation.

Processing, Research and Development (Report)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Paymaster-General when he now anticipates he will receive the report of the Wilson Committee on processing, research and development in the coal industry.

Mr. Maudling: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 8th June.

Mr. Cronin: As the task of finding alternative uses for coal is now a matter of extreme urgency, will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to speed up publication of the Wilson Report?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Paymaster-General to what extent the terms of reference of the Wilson Committee on processing, research and development in the coal industry permit them to make recommendations as to the desirability of the National Coal Board itself carrying out large scale development work on gasification processes.

Mr. Maudling: My noble Friend would regard recommendations on this subject as entirely within the Committee's terms of reference.

Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as the National Coal Board is particularly concerned with the maximum utilisation of coal, it might well be the appropriate body to undertake large-scale development work on gasification?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the question would be in order, and then asked me to anticipate the result.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean on this matter and tell the House who is this noble Friend to whom he constantly refers and whom none of us has ever met, and whether he

leads a separate, viable existence and what he does for a living?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman should refer to HANSARD at appropriate stages in the Session.

Administrative and Technical Staff

Mr. Owen: asked the Paymaster-General (1) what effect the present contraction in the mining industry has had upon the recruitment and training of administrative and technical staff; and whether he will make a statement;

(2) how many of the administrative staff in the employ of the National Coal Board have been declared redundant since the contraction of the industry.

Mr. Maudling: These are matters for the National Coal Board. As my hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) on 16th February, the Board is taking steps to reduce its non-industrial staff by 5 per cent. in 1959.

Mr. Owen: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot evade complete responsibility for the situation. For ten years young men have been encouraged to undertake specialist training in the coalfields. Now a situation has arisen in which there is a contraction in the industry and in which young men are seriously concerned about their future. Is there not an urgent need for the Government to take responsibility?

Mr. Maudling: By the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, the Coal Board is required to carry out and perform its functions relating to training on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister. Clearly, therefore, the initiative rests with the National Coal Board.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for generations the coal industry has recruited, at all levels, from coal mining families and that it is desirable that that process should continue and expand? Does he not realise that unless some security is given to the industry, the advice that I and my hon. Friends will give to the sons of coal miners is not likely to be to enter the industry?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which was clearly important.


It is for that reason that, while recognising the problems of the industry, both sides of the House should do their best not to exaggerate them, for the sake of future recruitment and training.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Hovercraft

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Supply on what date the preliminary suggestion for the design of the Cockerell Hovercraft was first submitted to his Department; what assistance was given; what action was taken; and on what date.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on 29th June.

Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that that reply was entirely inaudible to me, perhaps it would be repeated. How is it possible for me to put a supplementary question without knowing whether an Answer was given, and without knowing whether the Minister is prepared to give the information to the House? Is it possible for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to remember that whatever resemblance he bears to a well-known television personality his conduct in the House need not always follow that particular line.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think this has anything to do with the Question.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it not strictly in accord with Parliamentary usage that when the Minister, having replied to 40 Parliamentary Questions with their supplementaries and the hurly-burly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Hale.

Mr. Nabarro: May I finish, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It is the custom for applause to be delivered at the appropriate moment if hon. Members feel disposed to do so. I do not object to that, but I think we ought to get on with the Question.

Mr. Hale: Not having heard the answer to my Question, as a matter of

courtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, I put Question No. 42 without pressing for an Answer. Might I hear the Answer to Question No. 42 without further demonstration?

Factory, Oldham (Bardsey)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Supply what applications have been received in respect of the vacant large Government factory at Bardsey, Oldham and what steps have been taken to obtain suitable lettings.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): Two applications have been received and negotiations are about to start with the firm which would employ most labour.

Mr. Hale: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply- Will he bear in mind that Oldham Corporation is deeply concerned about this and is most anxious to have the fullest opportunity of cooperating in any arrangements that may be made and offering the fullest advantages to any tenant who would like to take over this factory, which is of very great importance to the town?

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I also appreciate the interest of Oldham Corporation, and I will see that every effort is made to keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress in the matter.

Aircraft and Defence Equipment (Demonstration)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply what assistance he gives to the manufacturers in demonstrating to the armed forces of the United Kingdom's allies the quality and range of British aircraft and equipment.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Official demonstrations are staged from time to time to present British aircraft and defence equipment to representatives of our Allies. In addition, Ministry of Supply aircraft, equipment and airfield facilities are made available to manufacturers for commercial displays and demonstrations, when this is desirable.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the support our manufacturers are given in selling military equipment abroad is totally inadequate? Is it not time that the Government, and especially the Ministry of


Supply, completely revised their policy in this matter and gave as much assistance in selling as the American Government do to their aircraft manufacturers?

Mr. Jones: No, it is not becoming so apparent. I think it is the duty of the Ministry of Supply to help any aircraft manufacturer to the utmost possible extent in his exports, but I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to realise that American equipment is making inroads into the Continent of Europe for reasons that have nothing to do with the volume of Government support.

Britannic 3 Aircraft

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Supply (1) what mechanical characteristics and aerodynamic features of the Short Britannic 3 are similar to the Lockheed C130 family of aircraft; and whether he will make a statement;

(2) what features of the Short Britannic 3 are derived from the Britannia, apart from the similarity of name; on what date it is now expected that this aircraft will enter service; and whether he will make a statement;

(3) if he will state the number of Messrs. Short and Harland's workers who were retained in employment between the date the order for the Britannic 3 was authorised by the Minister of Defence and 30th June, 1959, who, otherwise, would have been dismissed, and the number of additional workers who will be taken into employment before 31st December, 1959, in consequence of that decision.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply how many Britannic aircraft have now been ordered by his Department.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: While the Britannic design envisages a number of completely new components, such as a large capacity fuselage, it is fundamentally based on the Britannia design and includes many components either identical with or derived from those of the Britannia.
The Britannic superficially resembles the American C.130 family of aircraft in that it is a turbo-prop freighter aircraft with a long range and a high wing. In no way can it be said to be derived from the American designs.
Since the specification for the Britannic has not yet been made final, no contract has yet been placed with the Company. I am informed, however, that about 200 technicians are now employed on the project and that by the end of the year this figure will have risen to about 500. Next year, as the programme gets under way, the additional employment will be substantial.

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence informed the House that he was placing an order for a long-range freighter aircraft on the lines of the Britannia? The Minister expected the aircraft to fly in April, 1961, and be in production by 1962. Is it not now clear that this aircraft is an entirely new one, that it will not fly in 1961, and that it will be very lucky if it gets into the air at all by 1962, and it certainly will not be in production before 1964 and probably 1965? By the time it is available to the Armed Forces it will be completely out of date and there will be no civil market, which was one of the essential conditions that the Minister of Defence informed the House he took into account in placing the order.

Mr. Jones: I do not recall the exact terms of the statement made by the Minister of Defence. However, it is nonetheless a fact, and the hon. Gentleman must accept it, that this aircraft is based to a large extent on the Britannia. It is true that the new specification is not identical with the original one, but nevertheless I hope, and I think it is a well-founded hope, that this aircraft will find a civil export market if only for the reason that its capacity and fuselage are greater than in its competitors.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Three Questions of mine are being answered together. If I am allowed only one supplementary I cannot raise the points I want to. I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, on one very important point, that is, about timing. The Minister made a statement that the prototype would fly in 1961 and that it would be in production at the end of 1961 or 1962. We now know that that timetable is out of date.

Mr. Jones: As I said, I do not recall the exact terms of the statement made


by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, but if the hon. Member will put down a further Question I shall endeavour to give him an answer.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I have on the Order Paper three Questions, one of which referred to the time-table. If the Minister does not know the answer which the Minister of Defence gave, he ought to know the answer which he himself gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) only last week, which differed substantially from those made by the Minister of Defence and the company itself.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is a point of dispute between the hon. Member and the Minister. The hon. Member is asking about something which the Minister of Defence said, but there is not a word about that in his Question.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has given answers to my three Questions and I make no complaint about that. But in Question No. 46 I specifically asked him about the timetable, and only last week the Minister gave an answer on the subject to the hon. Member for Macclesfield.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that many people are beginning to think that the announcement of orders for this aircraft were nothing more than a propaganda exercise? Are we now to take it that when the order was given we had no idea what the specification was or when the aircraft would be ready for delivery?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is to understand no such thing. When the Government came to their decision to choose this aircraft there were other designs, but none of those designs was made to a specification put up by the Air Ministry. It is only natural that the Air Ministry should wish to add certain things to designs originally submitted by manufacturers in the first place. As to dates, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield last week, I expect the prototype to be flying in 1962 and the aircraft fully to enter service in 1964.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory

nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment. Is it too much to hope that the Minister of Defence will reply?

Avro 748 Aircraft

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply when he expects to take delivery of the Avro 748 aircraft; to what use it is proposed the aircraft should be put; and what financial return there will be to his Department in the event of further sales of this machine.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I expect that delivery would take place in the first half of 1961. The aircraft would be made available to a United Kingdom operator for proving and introduction into regular service. The financial return to my Department would be dependent on the number of aircraft sold to other customers.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister say which operator will prove and develop this aircraft and which operator has stated he has a requirement for it? Are we to understand that an order has been given without any consideration as to the requirement or what the financial recompense will be to the country?

Mr. Jones: I am not in a position to say which United Kingdom operator will operate this aircraft, because I am now in negotiation with United Kingdom operators, and I cannot anticipate the outcome of these negotiations. As for the export market, it may interest the hon. Member to know that the Indian Government have decided, in principle, to adopt this aircraft for the Indian Air Force, subject to the negotiation of a satisfactory contract.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my hon. Friend tell us why he is backing two aircraft of similar performance when he has repeatedly told the House that he wants to eliminate competition in our own aircraft industry?

Mr. Jones: This question was raised some weeks ago. It was done because interest in both aircraft was expressed abroad.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied with the position of the aircraft industry at present? In


view of the vast sums of money expended, or about to be expended, would it not be better to order an inquiry into the position?

Mr. Speaker: That is a very much larger question.

DH121 Aircraft

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply why there has been undue delay in settling the basic aerodynamic design of the DH121 aircraft; who will bear the cost of these delays; how it will be apportioned between the manufacturer and British European Airways Corporation; when he expects the prototype aircraft to fly; and when deliveries of production aircraft will commence.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: As I informed the hon. Member last week, the DH121 has been proceeding as a private venture project, that is, no finance by my Department has been involved. The specification has therefore been entirely a matter between the customer—B.E.A.—and the manufacturer—Airco.
Liability for costs arising from delay in settling the specification would equally be a matter between the customer and the manufacturer. I am informed that the first flight is expected in late 1961 and that the aim is to start delivery in the autumn of 1963.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made in the Press last week, and in the Select Committee's Report, that this matter was held up for several months by his Ministry? Can we have an assurance that this important development for British industry will not be held up by his Department or any other?

Mr. Jones: I should have thought it was abundantly clear from my first answer that I have no responsibility for the negotiations proceeding between customers and manufacturers on the specification of this aircraft. I have, therefore, no official cognisance of the position.

Mr. Shinwell: I should now like to put the question which you ruled out of order earlier, Mr. Speaker. In view of the allegation of delay contained in the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and the right hon. Gentleman's reply about the

state of the industry, will he now answer the question I put to him, on Question No. 47, namely, in view of the position of the aircraft industry would it not be better to order an inquiry?

Mr. Jones: The allegation of delay contained in the Question, if such it be, is entirely without foundation, because I have no responsibility in this matter. As for the larger question raised by my hon. Friend, the state of the aircraft industry is certainly not such as to give rise to any satisfaction in anybody's breast. I would, however, quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his suggestion that the best way of dealing with the matter is by instituting an inquiry. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman were to put down the appropriate Questions I do not think that I should be proved very far astray in my analysis of the problems posed.

Prestwick Pioneer Aircraft

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Supply whether his attention has been called to the drop in orders for the Prestwick Pioneer aircraft; and what possibility there is of further orders on behalf of the Services he supplies.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Yes, Sir; but I am sorry to say that there is no further Service requirement for these aircraft in prospect at the moment.

Sir T. Moore: I appreciate to the full the help which my right hon. Friend has already given in this matter, but does he realise that about 600 craftsmen and others have been discharged by this company in the last few months, and that another 400 men are under notice today? Will he undertake to do anything he can to save the company, and to put it back into full production?

Mr. Jones: I fully realise the difficulty of the state in which this company finds itself. It is in a very sad state. On the other hand, I have no command over either export or Service orders.

Mr. Wigg: Is it not abundantly clear that what is wrong with the aircraft industry is that there is too much "Sandys" in the works?

Mr. Beswick: The Minister has refused to give any assistance or to place any orders with the firm to which the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) referred. On what basis does he decide to give


orders? He has given orders for three Avro 748 aircraft, simply to help a company build an aircraft for which there is no order in this country. What is the basis of his discrimination?

Mr. Jones: I place orders corresponding to Service requirements. In respect of the Pioneer aircraft, with which we are now concerned, and which is not the same as the previous one, there are no Service orders in prospect.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the Minister's statement that the state of the industry can give cause for no satisfaction in the breast of anyone, and also in view of the vast sums of money which are being spent in the industry, what proposals has he to deal with this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Jones: That supplementary question goes far beyond the Pioneer.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister appreciate that this is the only part of the aircraft industry in Scotland? In view of the vast sums of public money expended in this industry, can the Minister wonder that questions are being asked in Scotland about the fairness of the Minister in dealing with this company in respect of orders for this aircraft?

Mr. Jones: I understand that this is the only airframe manufacturer in Scotland. It can be said that the Ministry of Supply, in the last few months, has done everything possible to help this manufacturer. In the last resort, however, the Ministry has no command over export or Service orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Toilet Soap

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there have been widespread complaints

that a toilet soap, the name of which has been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Swindon, has caused dermatitis; and what action he will take to protect the public from such dangers to health.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): No, Sir, and I see no grounds for any action on my part.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister examine some of the many complaints that I have received about this product? Secondly, in view of the fact that the manufacturers of this "Fabulous Pink Camay soap" have declined to submit their product to an impartial investigation either by the Consumers' Association or the Consumers' Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, can the Minister state what protection can be given to the general public?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall be very happy to examine anything in regard to this or any other matter which the hon. Member wishes to send me, but I have received no complaints about this product. It may be, in respect of this as of other individual products, that some people have an allergy to it, in which case they had better not buy it. That is no reason for stopping its sale to people whom it suits.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPART MENTS, 1959–60

CLASS VI

VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,359,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including expenses in connection with employment exchanges and the inspection of factories; expenses, including grants and loans, in connection with employment services, training transfer, rehabilitation and resettlement; expenses in connection with national service; repayment of loan charges in respect of employment schemes; expenses of the Industrial Court; a subscription to the International Labour Organisation; and sundry other services. [£7,176,000 has been voted on account.]

PRINTING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

3.32 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): A year ago, in the atmosphere of a Motion of censure, we held a debate on the London bus dispute and I reacted sharply then to what I thought was the unhappy timing of that discussion. The debate that we are having today is, I hope, in a very different mood. This is an extremely complex problem, and I should like to make what perhaps I can describe as more an extended statement than a speech.
I am very grateful for the forbearance of the whole of the House throughout the stages of this dispute. There are two things which I should like to say first. There has been a flood of accusations and counter-accusations, of statement and counter-statement until I think that the whole country is dizzy with them. I merely say that I am sure that this

dispute would be easier to resolve if we could have a truce to the battle of words and recriminations, and that perhaps the House of Commons today can set that example. I have even torn up that part of my speech which was to refer—I will even leave out the adjectives—to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) thought it helpful to make over the weekend. Forbearance can go no further than that.
There is one more matter that I should like to recall. Year in and year out, at home and abroad, often under fierce criticisms, I have held, as I do now, to my firm belief that in spite of all its illogicalities and its occasional idiocies the system of industrial negotiation that we have in this country is as good as any in the world. I should like to put in HANSARD figures from a table recently produced by the International Labour Office, which gives the figures for the days lost in disputes over the 11 years from 1947 to 1957, on the basis—which is the only possible comparison there is—of days lost per 1,000 workers covering mining, manufacturing, construction and transport.
They are as follow: Western Germany, 102; United Kingdom, 206; Japan, 698; Canada, 732; Australia, 775; Italy, 807; Belgium, 888—in that bloc of major industrial countries the figure, therefore is between three and a quarter and four and a half times as high as ours—France, 1,013; India, 1,111—five times as high as ours—the United States, 1,381, or nearly seven times as high as ours.
Therefore, so far as we are concerned, the loss in the year, owing to industrial disputes, comes on average to about one hour or two hours per worker per annum. Although it is quite right that in a major dispute like this we should discuss it in the House of Commons, it would be quite wrong if from this debate, people got the idea that we have a worse record than the other great industrial countries in industrial disputes. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth. I believe that there are many millions of people inside and outside the trade union movement who regard the settlement of disputes by lockout or by strike as an absurdly old-fashioned weapon.
Before I come to deal with the dispute affecting the general printing and newspaper industries. I should like to restate what, I think, is the general principle which lies at the base of industrial relations in this country. The settlement of terms and conditions of employment in industry are fundamentally matters for negotiation and agreement between the two sides of industry without any form of interference from outside. Intervention by any third party—and in that expression I include myself—should take place only when it is abundantly clear that the parties have completely exhausted every possibility of reaching a settlement by their own efforts.
A Minister of Labour has no power to force a settlement, and although occasionally Ministers of Labour might wish that they had, I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who has experience of the office I hold, would agree with me that if there were such power vested in the Minister it would sooner or later be the death of the free collective bargaining system as we know it in this country. Although it is true in the great majority of industries these matters are settled without external assistance, it also is true that the printing industry has not a very enviable record, anyway in recent years, in this respect.
On the last two occasions, in 1950 and 1955, when the agreements in the industry fell due for review, serious disputes arose. Although they were not so widespread as the present one, nevertheless, they caused serious dislocation in the industry. I do not want to go into great detail into the history of the present dispute, but as the Committee will be aware the principal agreement on wages, which had run for a period of three years, terminated last April. I should like to record the story factually and without comment on the merits of either claim or offer.
In seeking a renewal of these agreements, the union submitted claims the principal features of which were, broadly, that wage rates should be increased by 10 per cent. or more for men and larger amounts for women, and that the working week should be reduced to 40 hours from the present general 43½ hours. At the outset the employers completely rejected these claims, but offered arbitration and,

later, after negotiations, made an offer of a 2½ per cent. increase in wage rates with a reduction of the weekly hours to 42½, that is to say, by an hour, coupled with a large number of proposals which they considered would improve the efficient working of the industry. No doubt the key one of those proposals is the question of apprentice ratio.
This offer was not acceptable to the unions, who also were not prepared to take the dispute to arbitration. From this a series of events has culminated in the present position where by far the greater part of the general printing and provincial newspaper industry has ceased production. The printing industry has its Joint Industrial Council. It is one of the oldest councils and its powers, particularly in relation to negotiations, were brought up to date—so it was hoped—in 1957.
This time the J.I.C. has not been fully used and I think that it is sad that the printing industry's own council should have failed the first test of its new powers. I hope very much that when this dispute is over both sides will get together to examine the machinery of negotiation within the industry to decide whether the coverage is correct, or whether it should be more flexible for different parts of what, after all, is a very complicated industry. It would be very wrong if they waited for three years to find themselves again in this position.
As the Committee knows—this is one of the factors that makes negotiation difficult—parallel with this dispute has been one between the Society of British Printing Ink Manufacturers and the National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants, which has led to serious difficulties for the national newspapers. In this case the union put in a claim on similar lines to that submitted to the printing employers. Settlements in printing ink disputes usually follow the settlements in the main field, although there is no absolute rule that this should be so.
I was concerned at this extension of the dispute to the national Press, because it involved a risk to the employment of many thousands of people not themselves parties to the original dispute. Accordingly, I called the two sides together to discuss the situation. My idea was to see whether we could arrange an armistice, pending the settlement of the larger dispute. In the mood in which the parties


were then, the talks failed, but as the Committee will know, there have been further talks this morning—they were adjourned for lunch and resumed again early this afternoon—on the basis of a document submitted by the employers.
If I may, I will ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who hopes to speak for a few minutes at the end of this short debate, to give a full account of what has happened today so as to bring the Committee up to date; that is assuming that we then know the final position.
At this stage there is one matter which I should like to make clear to the Committee. When I wrote to the parties concerned with the printing ink dispute, expressing my grave concern at this extension of the dispute, some people took my words to mean that I was in some way less concerned with the major dispute which had already stopped general printing among provincial newspapers. Frankly I do not see how my words could have led to that mistake, but I understand that that view is held by some people. I have just explained why I wish to isolate this part of the dispute.
In any event, let me make clear—and I am sure that the Committee will agree with me in this—that the local and provincial newspapers are no less important than the national ones. Their richness and variety is no less precious to us. But we must also beware of treating this dispute as though it were a dispute with the newspapers alone. It is much more than that. Nor even does it concern the printing houses and publishers alone. It spreads beyond that to the paper mills, to business, to financial houses, to commerce—even to sport. Many people, including writers and artists, with nothing whatever to do with this argument, find their livelihood affected, and I am sure that the Committee has an equal concern for them all.
What are the courses open to me, as Minister of Labour, to assist in bringing this situation to an end? There are three, and I should like to examine them with the Committee. Naturally, each course has a number of varients. The first is called conciliation, in which either I or my officers endeavour to bring the parties together to see whether we can help them to reach a negotiated agreement. I said a few moments ago that the best solution is that the two sides

should get together themselves and reach a settlement. But for some time now the prospects of their doing that have been been remote, and, therefore, I must consider—as I have considered many time—every day—whether any direct intervention by way of conciliation would help.
Of course, such conciliation action can be effective only when it is undertaken with the good will of both sides; where there is a disposition on the part of both sides to reach agreement and some indication that ultimately—it does not matter how long it may take—agreement is possible. I think that any intervention without these conditions being satisfied is foredoomed to failure. Not only that but, unfortunately, such a failure has the effect of hardening the position. So an intervention that fails may be far worse than no intervention at all, because it is bound to make more difficult a later try for success. And, of course, it will be clear to the Committee that the timing of conciliation action is of the utmost importance.
It is very rare indeed that such an opportunity occurs in the first few days of a major dispute. The parties are then firmly entrenched and, although I have the details before me, I do not intend to weary the Committee by reciting what has been said about their challenging attitudes to each other. I think that I can best sum up my attitude towards conciliation in words I used casually a year ago in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth. He will remember that I used them in response to a supplementary question which he put to me. I said that I would intervene when I saw "a chink of light".
This purely accidental phrase has since become almost proverbial. I am quite prepared to "explore every avenue" and to "turn all the stones", but I believe that a feverish hunt for a compromise that satisfies nobody does not lead to a lasting settlement. This is in no way a new doctrine enunciated by myself. It seems to me a fundamental principle of the handling of industrial relations.
The second course, when both parties are agreeable, is to make available some form of arbitration to hear the parties and to give an award. There is, of


course, a great deal to be said for the conception that when two people, or two associations, after prolonged and, no doubt, sincere effort to reach agreement have failed to do so, they should call in—whatever the precise machinery may be—someone from outside, assisted, if necessary, by technical experts, which might well be necessary in a case like this, who could be relied on to hear the case patiently and to judge it fairly. In this case I would add that if, ultimately, such a course becomes acceptable to both sides, then, naturally, we should be ready to set up any kind of body whose composition and methods of working would give mutual satisfaction to both parties.
Here, I should like to say something about what has been called the idea of a referee. I suggested this idea myself in the early stages of the dispute; in fact, actually before the dispute started. It is an idea which, in certain circumstances—I say frankly that I am not certain whether or not this is one of them—has a considerable attraction. The Committee will remember my invitation to Lord Evershed, two years ago—he was then Master of the Rolls—to act as arbitrator on the occasion of the big shipbuilding and engineering dispute. That idea was greeted with a good deal of applause for about a day and with a good deal of scorn afterwards. In the end, it proved unwelcome, but it may well be that had it been accepted, one of the most damaging strikes in recent years might have been avoided.
When the Trades Union Congress, whose interest in this matter I very much welcome, brought this idea—or rather a variant of it—to me, I was very ready to see whether the two parties could make anything of it, together with my officials. One fundamental difference exists, and it is: does the referee recommend, or does he decide? This question is at the heart of the conception of the referee. In real life, of course, a referee decides. He awards a penalty kick, and that is the end of the matter. In more seasonable mood the Committee would probably recall the story of the Yorkshire umpire who gave someone out l.b.w. This player said, as he passed the umpire, "That was never

out"; to which the umpire replied, "Buy thysen an evening paper, lad, and tha'llt see".
In those cases, the referee and the umpire decide. They have to decide. We cannot go on appealing from what they have said. The position in this dispute is that the unions are not prepared to accept a referee who would, in the last resort, have the powers of an arbitrator, however eminent the referee might be. I regret that, just as I regret the lack of agreement to go to arbitration, but I do not propose, in the temper of this debate, to push my reasons home.
Before I leave the question of arbitration I should like to make a passing reference to the Industrial Disputes Order, recently terminated. It may be thought that had this Order still been in existence it would have been possible to enforce arbitration on the unions, despite their reluctance. Nobody who really understands industrial relations believes that. It seems to me a complete fallacy. In 1950, when the Socialist Government were in power, a printing dispute was referred to the National Arbitration Tribunal, but the union concerned ignored the award, and a court of inquiry was set up which proved very little more effective.
Anyone who has any doubt on this point should read the debate on arbitration in the Trades Union Congress of 1950. He would read the speech by Mr. Willis, calling for an end to compulsory arbitration, and would be convinced. I am sure that the argument that arbitration is suspect has nothing to do with this case. It was not advanced until a few days ago and it would have no relevance to the appointment of an arbitrator agreed between the parties or to the appointment of a single referee acceptable to both sides.
The third course open to me is to establish some form of inquiry into the dispute. As I said earlier, this course has been followed twice during the last decade when the printing agreements came up for review and trouble followed in both cases. Those who are familiar with what happened in 1950 and 1956 will realise that the courts of inquiry did not have much success in either case. It would be extremely unsatisfactory for any industry if, on each occasion its agreements needed revision, it should


become a matter of routine for the Minister to set up a court of inquiry. I am sure the industry itself would, on reflection, like to avoid that situation, and to create an atmosphere in which such steps are no longer either automatic or necessary.
Quits apart from that general objection, I have given very careful consideration indeed to all the arguments for and against the appointment of a court of inquiry into this particular dispute. It is quite clear to me that to do so, at the present stage, at any rate, would not help significantly towards a settlement. I am sure that hon. Members have seen the statements made by some of the leaders about the possibility of such a court of inquiry. I do not rule it out for the future, as I do not rule out any solution; but my belief at the moment, after very careful consideration, is that it would neither be welcomed by the parties nor be effective at this time.
Yet, in the end, as we know perfectly well, the dispute will be settled by one or other of those three methods, or conceivably by a combination of two or even more of them, and, as necessary, we must be prepared to try them all and to try the various permutations that may arise for combining them. I have been examining the three ways in which an industrial dispute can come to an end. There are, of course, two other ways as well. This dispute could be settled this afternoon if either the employers accepted the claim in full or if the unions accepted the offer that has been made to them. In industrial relations, just as in foreign affairs, peace itself can easily be bought; but just as in foreign affairs it is not merely peace but an honourable peace that must be sought, so, in industrial relations, it is not merely a settlement but a lasting and workable settlement to which all parties must look.
My position is this. I am ready, with my officials, at all times to help towards such a conclusion, and the series of meetings that have been held and that we are holding will, I hope, clearly show that willingness. I am grateful to hop. Members who have given me advice in these matters, some of them with very great experience of this kind of problem, and to people outside this Chamber,

both those who criticise and those who praise—usually the first, of course,—in the light of their experience.
This situation changes from day to day and even from hour to hour and the way we must deal with it must take into account what is at the moment an extremely difficult and fluid situation. I am sure that the Committee understands that because these responsibilities are placed upon the Minister of Labour, the timing of his intervention and the methods by which he tries to seek a settlement can only and must only be judged by the Minister himself.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: There is a good deal of common ground between the Minister and this side of the Committee, particularly when he stresses that the purpose of this debate is not to exacerbate relationships and so create greater difficulties in this dispute, but to consider the matter here so that, perhaps, out of what is said by both sides, some ideas and suggestions might permeate in the direction of the contestants in the dispute, with a view to bringing it to an end.
I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid a small tribute to those of us, particularly on this side of the Committee, who have so far not brought this dispute on to the Floor of this Chamber. He well knows that the timing of a debate of this character is as carefully considered by us as it is by himself. We recognise full well that premature debate can do tremendous harm. Equally, there is responsibility to the public at large, which Parliament cannot overlook in any circumstances. Therefore, there must be a time, when there is an industrial dispute which affects the general public personally, when Parliament must say something and make what contribution it can to a general settlement.
There are two ways by which we, on our side, can deal with this matter. The first is by Question and Answer. We considered this matter very carefully and came to the conclusion that on this occasion this method would not be satisfactory. The second way by which we can deal with a matter of this importance is on the lines that the Minister has indicated, as an extended statement. Very often in the heat of supplementary questions things are said which, on


reflection, might have been put in a rather different way.
For that reason we decided that we would not approach this matter by way of Question and Answer, but that, because we happened to have a Supply Day available, we should give this time to it in the best interests of all concerned. I should like the Committee also to notice that in giving this time we invited the Minister to open the debate. We felt it very much better that he should make his statement—his expanded statement, as he has described it—in the rather cool way in which he has made it, keeping tempers down in a genuine endeavour to put the full facts before the Committee, so that we can all be apprised of what is at stake and perhaps, in our contributions, follow the same moderate, cool, calm manner of the Minister.
One of the factors which determined the timing of this debate was the fact that it had extended beyond the general printing dispute to the ink makers, and therefore, it would bring the national Press to a complete stop. Indeed, until we know what transpires today it might well be that by the middle of this week there will not be any national newspapers. The dissemination of news is so important that is should not be left solely to sound radio and television. The Press plays an important part in the dissemination of news to the people. We are an intelligent citizenship and read more newspapers per head of the population than any other country in the world. We like to find the facts and very often we ascertain the facts by reading more than one newspaper and more than one opinion.
It seems to us that the cessation of national newspapers would be a very bad thing for the country as a whole. Economically, it might be more important to settle a shipbuilding dispute in an organisation like Cammell Lairds. There might be more at stake from an economic point of view in relation to exports, but that does not impinge in the same way on the public as this dispute does. The timing and nature of disputes brought on the Floor of the House of Commons for discussion must be judged by criteria such as that.
I was very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman was not offended by the fact that we asked him to bring this matter before the Committee today but

rather welcomed the opportunity of making a statement. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to explain to the Committee that there were three ways in which this dispute could be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour. In my view, there is a fourth way, which ought to be tried before there is any possibility of success of any of the three suggestions which have been made for the Minister and of their being acceptable to the parties concerned.
One of the factors about this wage dispute is very important. It is that wages and conditions of the people in this industry were settled in 1956 on the basis of a three-year contract. Speaking for myself, I am very much in favour of long-term wage agreements. I very much prefer—I think it is sound common sense—to have wage agreements which cover a period of two or even three years, with that slight fluctuation to deal with any real changes in cost of living, so that both employers and employed know precisely where they stand in relation to earning capacity and the on-costs which take place in any manufacturing or productive industry.
Therefore, I state my position very clearly. I believe in long-term wage agreements. I believe they enable stability and that it is a good thing to get rid of constant wage applications. Sometimes in a single industry since the war we have had three wages negotiations in a period of fifteen months. I do not believe that we can get on to other talks by trade unions and employers—about efficient production—if they never leave the table because they have to be talking about nothing but wages and conditions. Therefore, I think it a good thing to try to get long-term wage agreements.
To the extent, therefore, that one side is proposing, as I understand the unions are proposing in this case to negotiate for a further three years, there is going to be much harder bargaining than if it were a question of getting a settlement today and making a further application in six months' time. I appreciate that at first there would be much harder bargaining which would take a considerably longer time for a three-year agreement, which I regard as a very sensible objective to reach.
The last negotiation covered wages and hours. In that wage negotiation and


settlement there was an arrangement by which for every rise in the cost of living 1s. would be added to the weekly wage packet. If we were to take the basis of £11 a week, one of the basic rates and the most common which is used—it is not the lowest and not the highest—it would be seen that as a result of cost of living increases since that last agreement about 13s. a week has been added to wages from three years ago, but if we took the cost of living as a percentage then the amount which would have been got as a percentage would not have been 13s. a week, but 19s. 8d., a difference of 6s. 8d.
The employers' offer of 2½ per cent. on an £11 basic rate would have been 5s. 6d., so if the unions had accepted 2½ per cent. they would have been accepting something much less than the normal rise on the cost of living basis would have provided. I do not want to argue the merits or demerits of the case. I mention that only to show that a great deal more talk is needed between the two sides about that particular point than has been the case.
I must say that I resent very much the idea which many people seem to have that all one must now do in wage negotiations is for the workers to put forward a claim, the employers to put a counter offer and then automatically to say, "This now goes to arbitration". In that case what becomes of negotiation? This is an absurdity and a very bad habit into which we have slipped in postwar years. It has been far too easy, and, in my view, it is also very bad discipline on both sides. The case for wages and conditions should be argued out within the industry by the people who know what they are talking about, particularly with all the intricacies in this industry and the technical difficulties which are known intimately only to the people in it. Negotiations are what ought to be taking place not just in this dispute but in many others which break up and lead to one side or the other saying, "This is our claim. This is our counter offer. Let us go to arbitration." Arbitration has its place in wage negotiations and wages settlements, but it is not a substitute for negotiations in which workers and employers sit round a table carefully arguing out the

pros and cons of both the claim and the counter offer.
I have tried to study all the details of this dispute. The employers have printed the whole case which was put by them and the reply of the unions, which I have read with great care, but I shall not enter into the merits of that. I have tried to understand this dispute, but the one thing that sticks out a mile is that the process of actual negotiation has hardly been started. It has certainly not yet reached that stage, in my view—and I speak as a trade union officer. If I left this House tomorrow I would go back to my old job as a trade union official.
I must say that, having studied the documents issued by the employers' association and by the trade unions, I do not believe that negotiations have yet really begun. Taking into account all the material, it is quite clear that there is a host of matters that ought to be discussed between the two sides, and there is some case, some merit, in the workers' saying, "Well, we are not ready for arbitration at this stage. We are not ruling it out at some point, but we certainly have not had sufficient negotiation to narrow the differences to a point where we can say that an independent person should make the final decision."
I believe that there is a real necessity for getting negotiations going again between the two sides. That is why I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a fourth way in which he could use his good offices, as Minister, to get them going again, and I should like to deal with that aspect now. I might add that I had fully intended—as, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had intended to enlarge upon what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said over the weekend—to say something about what the trade unions think of arbitration, in view of what has taken place over the last two years. I shall not do so, because I am following precisely the line followed by the Minister, and leaving that out of my remarks. It would raise arguments and, perhaps, bitter controversy, so let us leave it at that and move to a more constructive line.
Here we have a situation in which a claim has been made and a counter offer has been made; in which one side says "arbitration", and the other side says,


"Not yet—let us discuss these matters". What we might consider at the moment is whether there is any justice in saying that there should be further negotiations before anybody is pressed to arbitration.
There is the hours offer and there is a wages offer, and those are coupled with 22 points dealing with what the employers call restrictive practices and what the workers call protective practices. There is all the difference in the two adjectives, although we are talking about the same thing. The restrictive practices are apparent from the employer's point of view because, perhaps, they restrict his capacity to produce more efficiently. On the other hand, protective practices have grown up—particularly among the craft unions—from the days of the old guilds to protect the employment of the individual members of the craft or guild.
Through the years, we have seen a whole host of these restrictive or protective practices swept away in the onward march of new technical devices. The printing trade is the repository of quite a lot of these practices, but it is still true to say that within that trade a large number of what are known as restrictive practices have been swept away by the introduction of new machinery, new techniques, and the like. I have no doubt that were negotiations to take place, and a real examination be made of the three points—the hours of work, the wages and the restrictive practices—the workers could be met to the point at which it might well be that arbitration would not be necessary at all.
I have looked at these 22 restrictive practices. Some of them are neither here nor there and will obviously not bother either side very much, but some of them struck me as being quite fundamental, and as having a deep root in the craft methods of those employed in the industry. There is nothing more difficult than for a non-craftsman to try to persuade the craftsman that his craft is not really as intricate and difficult as he may think. Nevertheless, let us recognise that there is a psychology about this, and recognise that men who have built up a craft, as they have, are not likely to say automatically, "We will get rid of the 22 restrictive practices of which there is complaint"—all in an afternoon's consultation.
My own view is that we ought to have a sort of joint working party of the two sides to go into all these restrictive practices. The work might take four, five or even six months, but provided that there was good will, and that something reasonable was done about some long-term wage-and-conditions agreement, I do not believe that it would be impossible to deal with the 22 points.
I know full well the employers' argument. It is a perfectly simple one. They say, "If we give you better hours and better wages on the promise that you will deal with the restrictive practices, you will take the better hours and the better wages but will not deal with the restrictive practices." That is the simple point of the employers.
I think that the T.U.C. suggestion might now be followed. I believe it to be the fourth weapon in the Minister's armoury. It is not laid down in any Statute, but he would be the last man, I am sure, to suggest that he did not have a tremendous personal influence by reason of his Ministerial position. As I say, it is not in any Statute, but just as we, in Parliament, talk behind Mr. Speaker's chair, so he, with his advisers—who are extremely expert in these matters—could, by "talking behind Mr. Speaker's chair", so to speak, do a great deal of persuading that would enable this dispute to come to an end. I would not want him to do anything that he thought, in principle, he should not do, but I do not think that such action would be against any principles at all.
First, therefore, I think that the T.U.C. suggestion, which the Minister agreed was something akin to his own, ought to be pursued. I suppose that the reason why the unions could not accept the idea of an individual being the referee is that we are all accustomed to the referee making decisions. This is not something that they—or I myself, on looking at the case—feel that they could be expected to accept. I still believe that negotiations are more important at this stage than trying to press arbitration on a party that is unwilling, and where it is perfectly clear from an examination of the facts that what is of the greatest importance is to get agreement on more negotiations.
As I understand, neither side agrees to the suggestion of arbitration within the Joint Industrial Council. That is clearly


ruled out. I shall not go into the reasons, but one of the past chairmen on the employers' side has said that if, in a major dispute between the B.F.M.P. and the unions, the J.I.C. machinery were resorted to, the matter would probably be doomed to failure. Therefore, I make no case, nor do I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself would want to make a case, of the fact that the J.I.C. machinery has not been used.
On the other hand, both sides have agreed that they would accept the advice of a friend—someone experienced in industrial relations. I shall not mention any names, but there are some very obvious ones. They are people who have not merely experience of sitting as chairman, but have the experience that many of us have had on a negotiating body, where the chairman has taken an interest in the whole of the proceedings, has guided, advised, suggested and, indeed, has conducted the conversations to enable negotiation to take place easily and smoothly across the table, intervening at the point when it might seem that something was about to be raised that would throw a spanner in the works. That is the sort of idea which lay behind the T.U.C.'s suggestion, namely, that there should be an eminent person sitting there, holding the reins, helping and guiding.
From my own experience in this field I have reason to believe that one can go a long way in resolving differences. When one is working with the kind of man I have just described, when one gets down to differences which cannot be bridged, it has been my personal experience more than once that, while the chairman has not arbitrated, he has very often given his view about what remained unsettled. What the chairman has given as his view has very often behind closed doors been accepted without loss of face to anyone.
That is what I am now suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman. It is obviously in the public interest that this dispute should cease. The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that, if the dispute is protracted, it will bring in its train a good deal of hardship to many people who are not in dispute at all and who appear to be very remotely connected with the industry. It moves a long way back when one thinks in terms of all that

takes place around the production of a newspaper. Therefore, it is in the public interest that this dispute should be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
Equally, it is no part of our task to produce ideas or suggestions which, at any stage, look as though one side is losing face. Therefore, in a dispute involving hours, wages, and restrictive or protective practices, with the possibility of a long-term agreement—this is all very important—and where all these matters must be discussed at great length, there is the possibility of settlement provided that there is the right kind of chairman acceptable to both sides, whose advice, in the last analysis, might easily be taken, even on unsettled matters. That is a field which the right hon. Gentleman might examine with his experts. Indeed, in the way which I have suggested, he might discuss it informally with both sides separately to begin with.
I believe that today's debate in this Committee, as it has been opened by the right hon. Gentleman, can do much good. I hope that the debate will continue on the same lines, keeping on an even keel. I hope that we shall not make allegations from one side or the other. These are the most delicate days of the whole dispute. What we say in this Committee will have a tremendous effect. My suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he tries to pursue his original idea, the idea then worked on by the T.U.C., of a man to take charge of negotiations, he will meet with much greater success than possibly he thinks at present.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I hope that I shall respond to the spirit of the invitation contained in the concluding sentences of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). Certainly, I agree with him that the dispute may go very far and wide. One of my small criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that if the dispute is not solved soon it may have as damaging an effect upon our export industry, as well as our internal industry, as any of the more obviously industrial disputes that he mentioned.
After all, our society runs on print and the printed word. The visual aid, which, we are told, will take the place of


the printed word in centuries to come, has not yet had that effect. That being so, and since print and the printed word go into everything that we do, I regard the dispute as being so serious that I hope that no word of mine, or, indeed, of any hon. Member who follows me, will do anything to prolong by one hour what is a very serious situation.
I do not dissent from or quarrel in any way with the right hon. Gentleman's plea in defence of the unions for refusing to arbitrate. That must be consistent with my right hon. Friend's action earlier in this Parliament in doing away with the remains of compulsory arbitration. My right hon. Friend's action then seems to have been entirely justified by what has happened now. Further, if there is in the constitution of the J.I.C., as amended in 1957, any implied obligation to arbitrate, which for some reason which I do not understand is a dead letter, it is time that the constitution was revised, because it is bad for everyone that there should be on the books an obligation and a pledge to arbitrate in which no one really believes.
It is bad for the law, it is bad for the parties and it is bad for the health of industrial relations. If this obligation or undertaking, or whatever it may be, to arbitrate is in the constitution of the J.I.C. when this trouble is over I hope that it will be amended, because we do not like these obligations to be there and yet to be flouted and ignored.
Although the parties are at present very wide apart, to a fairly detached observer it looks as if there is scope for settlement, because it is not a depressed industry. Wages are high and, on the whole, profits have been good. This is the sort of industry in which, although the parties are wide apart, they can be brought together. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the problem when he referred to what he called and what I am happy to call "protective practices". It may be only a hunch but I do not believe that the parties are all that far apart on hours and wages. I believe that restrictive or protective practices constitute the nub of the problem.
An industry's attitude towards apprenticeships is always a good test as to whether it has restrictive practices. In a great speech made in April of this year,

the right hon. Gentleman put his finger on this matter as regards the printing industry. I will quote to the Committee a paragraph from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because it is very apropos of this dispute. Speaking of the need to widen apprenticeships, the right hon. Gentleman said:
It has been said that we cannot provide more places for skilled apprenticeships because the trade unions have a ban upon more than a certain number of apprentices being accepted, and they want a certain ratio. I have investigated this as objectively as it is possible to do, and I have found that in the printing trade, certainly, and in the shipbuilding industry, with particular reference to welding, that is so. The number of apprenticeships is strictly limited. Everywhere else—and this represents the bulk—there is not a great amount of feeling. There is a good deal of flexibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 1481.]
If I am right in thinking that the attitude towards new intake and apprenticeship is the outward sign of the degree to which a trade union operates restrictive practices, the printing unions, out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, looked at this matter as objectively as he said he did, have been to a certain extent indicted. I know very well that it is no good telling craftsmen, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that their secret methods and the arcana of their trade take too long to learn. In my own profession we are sometimes rather sensitive when laymen say that to us, but we know very well that when they are exposed very often there is no justification for these practices.
As some of us in the House of Commons remember, three or four years ago a certain body of gentlemen—I hope I am not treading on delicate ground—the Association of Suez Canal Pilots, explained carefully to the world that it was quite impossible for anybody except a Suez Canal pilot to pilot a ship through the Suez Canal. Some of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and certainly I myself, had doubts about that at the time. Those doubts have been justified. I believe that in many cases these claims of secret knowledge, of extreme expertise and of the difficulty of training anyone in a period of less than seven years to understand even the rudiments of the craft, are greatly exaggerated.
I am sorry that one of the first actions taken by the printing unions—I hope that I am not casting an apple of discord into the love feast which there has been


so far, but I am obliged to say this—was to put an immediate ban on the intake of any new apprentices. What on earth had that to do with the present dispute? How could it in the least affect present productivity? It seemed to me—and this is the strongest adjective I shall use—a somewhat mean way of taking out of the next generation the disputes concerning the present generation. I hope that so far from putting any ban on new apprenticeships, out of the dispute that is now raging will come an increase in the number of apprenticeships and, if possible, a shortening of their length.
We all know, and in the debate of 30th April we all recognised, that we must do all that we can to see that the boys and girls who are now crying out for apprenticeships, and who have the skill and ability to take advantage of them, are not denied the chance by the sort of dispute that is now taking place and in which they are the sufferers. I will not go into the other restrictive practices—I do not know about them—but I hope that the Committee will agree with me that an extremely good test of whether an industry has restrictive practices is the degree to which it restricts entry.
I turn briefly to another aspect of the dispute which troubles us all. There are in the printing industry large firms that make a lot of money and small firms that make very little money. There are, perhaps, large firms that do not make much and small firms that make a lot. One of the troubles that we are increasingly encountering as the present century moves forward is the difficulty of large-scale negotiations by which the profitable firm gets away too cheaply and the firm which is not so successful, perhaps through no fault of its own, gets put out of business by the uniform increase for all workers of the same wage and the same rate.
I do not believe that the printing industry is the worst example of that. Obviously, the engineering industry, which speaks for its 3 million or more workers, is the most unwieldy and most unruly—at least, the most unwieldy—in that respect. Even in the printing industry, however, it is obvious that a lot of firms, including small firms, will go out of business if the sort of increase that a large firm can well afford is granted.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Will the hon. and learned Member therefore explain why, when employers have very largely agreed to the union terms and are continuing their businesses, they are mainly the small printing firms?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That may well be, but there are also large firms which have done that. I am reminded of Waterlow's, which is a large firm which has agreed.
One cannot deduce anything from the fact of the present agreement between the firms, because they may have formed the view that if they do agree, they will go out even more quickly than if they do not agree. Many of these firms simply cannot afford a dispute for two or three days, whereas a lot of the more powerful firms with reserves feel that they can. The hon. Member for Bristol. South (Mr. Wilkins), who is, I believe, a trade union negotiator, knows well from his own experience that a small and impoverished trade union would give in long before a large and rich trade union, because it would not have the funds available with which to pay.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that there should be discriminatory wage rates in an industry for people who perform the same work?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: No I am not suggesting that national negotiations should be abolished. I am saying that in many respects the set-up has become too large and unwieldy. I suggest that it is not possible to do anything about this concerning the present dispute now, although there are lessons to be learned from the dispute about the size of negotiations in the modern world particularly when this trouble does not apply to the same extent to our competitors.
I am all in favour of the increase of efficiency in the industry to which the right hon. Member for Blyth referred. That would lead to shorter hours and higher wages. I do not, however, see how either of those things can come about so long as the printing industry is losing its business, as, we are told, in many cases it is, to our competitors, and particularly our European competitors.
It is one of the tragedies, perhaps, of the temporary failure of the European


Free Trade Area that we do not have a greater uniformity, as we would have to have if there were a European Free Trade Area, of terms and conditions of labour in such matters as the printing industry. To my mind, there is no doubt whatever that unless the productivity of this industry can be maintained in spite of shorter hours or higher wages, the industry undoubtedly will lose to its competitors in Holland, Germany and other countries whose productivity is greater.
I hope, therefore, that in the talks that the right hon. Member for Blyth suggested, or in whatever other method by which the dispute is settled, the greater productivity resulting from the withdrawal of protective practices and the general streamlining of the industry will go hand in hand, simultaneously at least with the greater financial concessions for which the unions are asking.
The right hon. Member drew some interesting figures about the cost of living alterations since three years ago and made an impressive case. If, however, he hitches his wagon too closely to the standard of the cost-of-living index—because it is clear that under the present Government the cost of living is now stabilised—will he not sooner or later come up against the argument that, the cost of living having been stabilised, there should be no more wage increases?
The right hon. Gentleman knows the argument perfectly well, but I suggest that if too much emphasis is placed upon the cost-of-living argument, it will be difficult to grant the right increases in wages that should take place even though the cost of living is stable.

Mr. Robens: I was not arguing the merits or demerits. I was merely showing that in the case of the 2½ per cent. which had been offered by the employers, people on the basic rate of £11 a week would be much worse off in comparison with the purchasing power of the £. In other words, their cost of living bonuses at 1s. per point were worth 13s., whereas on a cost of living percentage basis, the figure would have been 19s. 8d. The 2½ per cent., however, would mean only an additional 5s. 6d. and, therefore, they would be 1s. 2d. a week worse off than the agreement of three years ago.
If we consider, also, what the Lord Privy Seal has told the trade union

movement about the standard at which it should aim—that is, of doubling the standard of living in the next twenty-five years—this means a minimum increase of 3 per cent. per annum. This in itself shows that there is room for negotiations. That was the only point I was making.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I follow what the right hon. Gentleman says, and there is a lot in what he says. All I am seeking to show is that, in a situation in which the cost of living has been stable for twelve months or more, to calculate a fair increase in wages that should be granted in such a circumstance is somewhat of a novel problem to us all. What it cannot be on the one side, provided the industry is productive and its productivity is increasing, is nothing; and what it should not be on the other side is a complete swallowing up of the fruits of that productivity.
If it is the latter—and, clearly, the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it should not be the former—it means that we shall be back again inevitably in a raging inflation, because if productive industry takes out in wages for its own workers all the results of the productivity there can be nothing for those who work in the services or the other ancillary industries which are not amenable to the productivity test and which, therefore, on the basis of parity of payment, in which we all believe, would have to be rewarded in only one way, by the extension of credit and by the printing of money.
In this new situation which we find in large-scale labour negotiations in a stable cost of living situation, I think that we are going through somewhat uncharted seas. I suggest that the right answer is something between the productivity of the industry concerned and a complete negative, on the ground that the cost of living has not moved or has gone down.
I said at the beginning of this speech, which I said would be short, that this dispute, although apparently bitter and although the parties are very far apart, seems to the detached observer, if anyone can feel detached, as if there were a good deal of opportunity for a settlement. It all hinges on this question of productivity, and productivity all hinges on the question of restrictive practices.


That being so, surely now both sides of the industry—and they must know this—can see: that the rest of the public depend upon their services so much, and will ensure that the public is not deprived of those services if they can between them hammer out this question of productivity, because if it is hammered out wages and hours will fall into line rapidly.
We sit here under the shadow of a much more serious July than we have yet realised. It is not a question merely of not having the morning or evening or weekly papers. It is a question of all the things that we have come to take for granted in our lives, even down to the cricket score cards and things like that, suddenly stopping. Our trade will be affected. All our lives will be affected. Indeed, there is no knowing, when parties get inflamed to that extent, and where they have friends all around them, how far it may not spread. If anything that either speakers on the Front Benches, in both of their very constructive and wary speeches, have said today will make the disputants come together, I for one, shall be the first to praise them.

4.44 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has described himself as a detached observer of this dispute. I am a detached observer, but I must declare that I was for a decade or more a member of the Council of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association. On many occasions I was on its Labour Relations Committee, discussing labour problems with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), and what I have to contribute to this debate comes from the experience that I got as one who represented the employers in Fleet Street, those engaged not only in the production of the national dailies, but in the provincial offices, too. Therefore, although I am now detached from the industry, I cannot feel as completely detached as the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Reference has been made to the cumbersomeness of the negotiating machinery which exists in the printing industry, and I propose to deal with that later. I do not agree with the hon. and

learned Gentleman when he says that the nub of the problem lies in restrictive practices. What are now called restrictive practices in the newspaper and printing industry have been enshrined for years in agreements. It is all very well now to talk about these as restrictive practices, but they have been accepted by the employers, and over the long period when I worked in Fleet Street and sat on these negotiating bodies there was no question of proceeding on the basis of complaining about restrictive practices. What one argued was the practice of the trade, the condition and custom of the house. These are things which are now being described as restrictive practices.
During periods of unemployment, when men saw that they were going to lose their jobs, they fought like tigers to find some way of holding those jobs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark was ingenious, if I put it no further than that, in finding ways in which they retained their jobs. But even those were enshrined in agreements. Therefore, it is not as easy as being told, say, "Let us deal with restrictive practices and then we shall be able to solve the whole problem in this industry", without trying to find out what lies behind the reason for these so-called restrictive practices.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not deny that the employers agreed to these practices, but a restrictive practice is no less a restrictive practice because all parties agree to it.

Sir L. Plummer: No, but often what is termed a restrictive practice—and I do not want to use this phrase; I borrowed it from the hon. and learned Gentleman—is something which is convenient both to the employer and to the employee. It is now in a period when it is presumably no longer convenient to the employer, that it is described as a restrictive practice, and I am saying that one should be very careful in the use of this terminology.
As for apprentices and the length of time spent in apprenticeship, I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how long it takes to master his craft—ten years at a public school, five years at a university, so long eating dinners, and so on. I do not think that we should make these comparisons from outside the industry of what goes on inside it.
For thiry years there was peace in the newspaper industry, by and large. From 1926 to 1956 there was practically no dispute of any serious kind. How is it, then, that the newspaper and printing industry has got itself into a position where, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour made clear in his speech, we have got pretty bad relations? I suggest that it is because there is now a duality of membership of the employers' association on the employers' part, which is making it extremely difficult—and here I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen—to obtain a basis for negotiation.
Look at the position today. The provincial morning, evening and weekly papers are in membership of the Newspaper Society. They are also in membership of the British Federation of Master Printers. Incidentally, I suggest that, psychologically, it would be a good thing it the word "master" were dropped by the employers. It has an old-fashioned connotation which could well be one of the matters which were negotiated out of the trade. The periodicals—and I am a director of a periodical published in London—which are members of the Weekly Periodical Trade Publishers' Association are also printed by members of the Federation of Master Printers.
In the old days a small weekly newspaper started very largely because the family were general printers. They printed the cricket fixture cards, the football club fixtures, dance tickets, and so on. They were general printers, but in the great development of printing in the nineteenth century they ultimately became newspaper proprietors. They now want to keep, as it were, a foot in both doors. But one cannot negotiate with the employees of a newspaper on the same basis as the employees of a general printing firm. The same conditions do not apply.
Consider the situation today. The master printers say, "We will not give a 40-hour week. We will not give increases in pay". But their members who are also members of the Newspaper Society are giving their employees the 40-hour week and better wages. Here there is a duality which is ridiculous. A negotiator cannot put on a bowler hat as a member of the Newspaper Society and another as a member

of the British Federation of Master Printers. There is no sense in it, no more sense than in the situation with which the national newspapers are now faced, namely, the possibility of a shut-down because of a dispute over ink among firms which they themselves own.
Two of the British printing ink companies are owned by two of the great newspaper groups. These national newspapers say, presumably, "We support the ink manufacturers who, in turn, say that they cannot have a settlement until we know what the terms of agreement are between the unions and the British Federation of Master Printers". What the national newspapers have got to do with the British Federation of Master Printers I do not know.
Surely it is the job of the two national newspaper groups to say, as they have said on previous occasions, "We shall not have our newspapers shut down because of disputes which do not concern us and which do not arise from our direct employment". The order could have gone out to the two firms, "Settle your differences. We shall not shut down our papers".
It is because of this duality of membership that the whole negotiating machinery is, in my view, getting completely out of control. We must also consider the position of the magazines. I see that Lord Beaverbrook has been "having a crack" at Odham's and the Daily Mirror complaining that these people are so rigid and bitter that they brought the dispute on themselves. I would not know whether this was true. What is clearly true is this. If a whole group of magazines are taken over which are printed within a stone's throw of one office and a man who works in that office in Fetter Lane, Long Acre, or Fleet Street is told, "You do this work and we will give you a 40 or 38-hour week, or, in some cases, a 35-hour week", the man will co-operate, but if one prints in Farringdon Street, where there is a 42 or 43-hour week, the men across the road will not play.
The men say, "You have brought us into one big family. Give us the same conditions all round." It is no good simply saying, "I am a member of the N.P.A., the Newspaper Society, the Federation of Master Printers, or the British Printing Ink Manufacturers'


Association". There is a duality of these organisations which makes sensible talking, I think, almost impossible.
The provincial newspapers are now suffering grievously from this strike. I support hon. Members who take the view that the provincial newspapers make a rich contribution towards our social and cultural life. I should like to see them come out of the British Federation of Master Printers, but stay in the Newspaper Society and use the Newspaper Society for negotiating machinery. I think that this would be acceptable to the trade unions. Many of the provincial newspapers are in competition with the provincial editions of the national newspapers. For instance, Manchester provicial papers are in competition in matters of labour, fixing wages and hours with the provincial editions of newspapers emanating from Fleet Street. They need the Newspaper Society to represent them, not the Master Printers.
Hon. Members have referred to the harm being done to the newspapers by this strike, but it is not comparable yet with the harm done to many provincial newspapers and periodicals by commercial television, which has killed newspapers and periodicals, and, if it continues in the present way, will go on killing a lot more. I wish that hon. Members opposite would pay as much attention to this awful danger to the freedom of the Press and to freedom of expression of opinion by this new medium as they do to the position in which the newspapers find themselves through this strike. The Daily Express said on Saturday:
So far as the national newspapers are concerned, they should never have been dragged into this alien and damaging dispute.
I would add that neither should the provincial newspapers have been drawn into it.
Only if the provincial newspapers, and the periodicals and magazines, recognise that their interests lie in obtaining proper and regular negotiation with the trade unions on the ground that they are publishers, and not on the ground that they are general printers, will we avoid stoppages of the kind now taking place and return to the good relations which once flourished in this important industry.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Like the hon. Members for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer)

and Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who I hope will catch your eye, Mr. Hynd, I have an indirect relationship with the printing industry. I am a publisher primarily, but I am also a printer.
It is often difficult for us on this side of the House, particularly if we happen to be printers, to listen to the attacks of hon. Members opposite on the question of productivity per man. It is alleged that our productivity per man is so much lower than it is in other countries, particularly America, because we do not make sufficient use of machines and of horse-power. At the back of my mind always is the thought of the poor master printer faced with incurring sometimes immense expenditure on something which will not be used to the full for those labour-saving purposes for which it is designed because of the necessity to negotiate with a dominant union the new manning agreements for that machine. The protective practices, or restrictive practices, lie at the root of the relationship with the unions. May I take an extreme case?
Very recently a new and highly productive machine was produced, which required to work it only half of the men—and there were quite a few in question. Incidentally, I would here join issue with the hon. Member for Deptford when he implied that these and the agreements of the past are willingly agreed. They are most reluctantly agreed and under duress, and I will say why in a moment. In this particular case, it was agreed that as many people should be employed, notwithstanding the labour-saving capacity, as had been employed before. When the machine came to be built it was found that there was not room to accommodate the unwanted bodies around the machine and, believe it or not, a rest room had to be built separately so that the men who were supposed to be working on the machine could play cards and earn their money for doing nothing elsewhere.
Again, take the case—

Mr. Isaacs: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the firm and the machine from which this story arose?

Mr. Pitman: It concerns one of the big rotary presses. If I may, I will send full particulars to the right hon. Gentleman.
Then, too, there is the extreme case of the setting of type for advertisements. In many cases, although a stereo or complete block is sent to the printer, the type has to be set afresh, and then, after all that work has been done, it has to be melted and the work done from the block which was originally supplied. Provided one pays the man for that unnecessarily reduplicated work, it is sometimes relaxed and one need not also pay for the refining of the metal which has been lost. The point is that the man gets paid for doing no work in that case, too.
These manning agreements produce sinecure posts. It is common knowledge in the printing industry in Fleet Street at the moment that people who are out of work are being brought up to London to stand in on these jobs on which they do nothing so that they can get money in place of their strike pay, or in supplementation of it. They work one night, say, on the Daily Mail and another on the Daily Express and in those two nights they get within £1 of what they would have got at their ordinary job if they had been at work.

Mr. Wilkins: May we get this clear? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people come up from the provinces and get a night's work on the London papers?

Mr. Pitman: I think the case I have heard about is coming up from Croydon or that district. On the issue of craftsmanship which the right hon. Member raised, I can assure hon. Members that there is no craft in it. These persons have never worked the big rotary machines in their lives. They are no more capable of doing it than I am.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman says that it is something that he has heard about. Is he telling the House of something that he has heard about and has not satisfied himself as to the truth of the accusation that he is making?

Mr. Pitman: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am more than happy about the accuracy of everything that I am saying. It is not a question of documenting the accuracy here in the Committee. A plea was made that we should not spread this matter too far. I will give the right hon. Gentleman written particulars of my sources and everything else.
Why is it again I would say—in the field of demarcation—that it is supposed that the London printer is so much less intelligent and adaptable than the provincial one and is capable of a less wide use of his skill? The answer is that he is in reality no less skilled than the provincial printer, but the London printer is in a position to enforce standards of demarcation even more vigorous than those imposed in the provinces.
Then there is the question of the shutting down on the intake of all apprentices mentioned by my hon. Friend. The accusation was thereupon made against the Bar that it has a long period of apprenticeship. But we must recognise that the Bar does not in any way limit any number of persons seeking to become members of the Bar and if they are good enough at the examination they will be admitted—all of them to any quantity. That is just not true in the case of the printing trade; those who are really competent at their trade, and are known and provable to be competent, are not even allowed to be admitted.
The fact is that the attitude of all these unions to restrictive practices is the attitude of the closed shop, and the very tightly closed shop. Hon. Members ought to recognise that the newspaper is the most perishable of all commodities in the world. I do not mind whether fish or over-ripe strawberries are suggested; there is nothing as perishable as a newspaper. At about 5 a.m. in Fleet Street it is already a back number. It has to catch the train, and even ten minutes' delay at the crucial moment can cause frantic damage and costs to the man running the paper. Therefore, a tightly closed shop by the unions in respect of a part of the industry is a throttle which can stop the blood flow to the human brain in a matter of seconds and almost no price is too high to pay for survival.
I think it has to be recognised that the only reason why the national daily newspapers have been brought into this dispute is that known fact and the belief—which in the event has not proved to be justified—by Natsopa that if pressure was brought to bear on the daily newspapers, such was their vulnerability that they, with all their big forces, would pass that pressure on and bring it about that the whole of the dispute would be


settled in the way Natsopa wanted it. In my opinion, the newspapers were brought into this affair because of their known vulnerability and because of the success of blackmail upon them in the past.
I submit that the issue of profits is not really relevant. Some newspapers and some printers make a profit, and others do not. However, I think all in the Committee would say that a man is entitled to a good day's pay for a good day's work, and if he does the same work in place A for an employer B who makes a profit and in the same locality A for an employer C who does not make a profit, since he has supplied the work and it is the employer who has provided the inefficiency or efficiency, no discrimination should take place by reason of the profit of the one and the loss of the other employer.
I know there are marginal printers. I am certain that even they do not worry at all about the 6s. 8d. which the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) mentioned. I should like to correct him on one point. When one has added the value of the time to the value of the pay increase the total is better than the 6s. 8d.—a good deal better than that and in favour of the worker. Do not let us be unreal. If one gets a time award of that kind one either gets payment in money because one is already working less time than that anyhow or one gets the certainty of extra overtime; instead of being called "working time" it is called "overtime", but one's earnings are increased. Anyhow, even if it were a quarrel about 6s. 8d. as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I am certain that the 6s. 8d. is a niggardly sum and will give us no trouble if productivity is increased.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that this improvement in pay in return for better productivity can be negotiated and can be brought back into discussion, because it is such a small amount and there is such great willingness to pay extra money for extra output in shorter time.
After all, both sides know very well that there is a great potential. The printing industry is an industry which uses standard machines. One can find the same machines in Sweden, Switzerland,

America, Brazil, Chile—one could go through the whole alphabet. I know a printing engineer who tells me that he has only to be put blindfolded into the machine room of an ordinary general printing office in this country to know that he is in Britain, because all these machines which are designed to run at a standard high speed are being run at a slower speed under protection from the union. There is in that field and in the field of demarcation an enormous potential. The worker and the customer can be served enormously if the protected practices, even additional to the protection of no work, can be examined.
The question of the 22 points has been brought up. In issue they boil down to four headings. The first is the point of labour supply, which has already been mentioned on this side of the House, and I think it is agreed by hon. Gentlemen opposite; the second is that of demarcation; the third is the question of productivity, that is to say, speed, manning and so on; and the fourth is the introduction of new methods and processes.
In all this field one has to consider matters in terms of earnings rather than wages. We have to face the fact that—here I am talking primarily of Fleet Street, but there are cases outside—the earnings are in and over the £1,000 a year class.

Sir L. Plummer: Why not?

Mr. Pitman: Precisely. That is what we want. Anybody who is being paid £1,000 a year—which is usually made up of the basic rate, plus a merit money payment, plus an incentive on output, plus overtime—is jolly well worth it. I would far rather employ a man at that figure who was giving the stuff than somebody on the basic rate who was protecting his job and not giving value for money. Indeed, I do not think there is a single person in our employment who is on the basic rate.
It is agreed, is it not, that in terms of earnings this is one of the most highly remunerated industries in the country? As I have said, the employers are willing to pay more even to the highest earners. I agree with the hon. Member for Deptford that we like paying those high wages and would pay the high wages to people getting more than £1,000


a year with no less joy than to the others if they produced the output for it. However, let us not forget that there are such things as leapfrogging. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Dept-ford to talk about people in bowler hats, but the bowler hat does not seem to stop leapfrogging. The result is that unless restrictive practices are reduced significantly one gets the higher people paid even more and all the people paid more all the way up the line without any of the necessary justification of greater output.
Hon. Members opposite might quite reasonably say, "Why have the employers so changed? Why is it that they are now adopting such a progressive attitude towards pay in return for diminution of restrictive practices?" I think the answer is that they have now realised the immense effect which an increase of wage costs has on the consumers or customers—the members of the general public. The printing industry has been operating in very favourable conditions up to now. It has had a lot of good breaks, but now at last the customer is digging in his toes. I invite hon. Members opposite to ask any other publisher they like for his experience, and they will find that it is generally accepted in the printing trade now that customers are now most sensitive to increases in cost. In consequence employers are extremely reluctant to put anything on the cost of printing, so that for once they are prepared to put up with enormous losses—because a strike is a most ghastly loss-making affair—on this issue so that all increases in remuneration shall be at least matched by taking advantage of the immense potentialities for increased output which are in the industry for the taking.
Then, I think, we have a second reason for their change in attitude; and it is very interesting and it concerns their attitude to their competitors. Hitherto, the printing industry has been so competitive that it was virtually impossible to get a number of printers to agree even that twice two are four. Yet here, we have now a situation in which some, whose loss would be particularly great, because it is very quick, joining with others whose loss occurs at a slower rate and to a slower degree in collective action. There seems to be something

very strongly right in their belief in the fairness of the viewpoint of the customer on prices to justify them sticking together in this new way.
Finally, there is the third reason for their change, and that is the strength which comes to them from their willingness to arbitrate. It has been made clear from the very beginning that they were prepared to go to arbitration, that they were prepared to abide by arbitration, and that they were prepared and anxious to pay better wages if costs did not increase.
This question of arbitration and the very use of the word is a trifle difficult since the Industrial Disputes Order was repealed. I was approached by the Bath Trades Council on the occasion of the repeal and had an interview with the delegates which was very interesting, and I think the House would like to know what their attitude was on that subject.
I made the point that with the likelihood of the price of the £ being more stable in the future, and certainly not going up as rapidly and often as it had gone up in the past, with the cost of living bonuses given in so many of these industries, it was probable that any dispute for arbitration would now be most difficult, because there would not be the same favourable case for beneficial and highly beneficial awards. If there was an award, it might be a relatively small one.
I said, "Remember that whatever the industrial wage average or earnings average may be, there are a lot of people above that average and a lot of people below it, and that the people who are in a position to force arbitration on this matter are those very people who, like the printers, have got their industries absolutely where they want them and are best able to do again that which they have already succeeded in doing. Do you really want this Act to continue to provide compulsory arbitration so that these people now highly paid and above the average can be paid more?" They said, "Oh, no; that is not what we want. What we want is that the lower ranges who can bring no such pressures should go up and get more nearly what is paid to the others."
I did not agree with them that there should not be any increase in the top


levels. But it seems to me to be perfectly clear that the average trade unionist in this country does not think that highly-paid workers, particularly those drawing £1,000 a year and more, should get improved earnings without improved output at this time, but that there are other people who should get it.
Anyhow, I do not really know what is the objection to arbitration—
… a rose,
By any other name, would smell as sweet".
Arbitration is not really a dirty word, but there is something which has come about which seems to suppose that it is. Let us not think that arbitration is a dirty word, because we have already seen that arbitration is voluntary, whereas a referee is somebody who gives a decision—

Mr. Monslow: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the classic example of what happened when the Minister decided against implementing a decision for an increase?

Mr. Pitman: That is precisely the point. Arbitration is voluntary because, like arbitrating between a husband and wife, we cannot without agreement get the arbitration carried out, whereas, compulsory arbitration by a referee as my right hon. Friend said, is final and effective. As he said if you read in the papers that you have been given out then you are out, and there is no doubt whatever about it that the referee had the last word. That is far more compulsory than arbitration.
Anyhow, I know, that the people in the trade unions in this industry are really good people, and I cannot understand why the trade union leadership will not carry out a poll on this question of arbitration, or call it anything else, because that arbitration could, indeed take place, as the right hon. Member for Blyth mentioned as his fourth point, on the parallel working out of agreement concerning these restrictive practices or "protective" practices. Negotiation on such lines seems to me to be a very fruitful field, and one which should be investigated, because it seems to me that we must find a solution.
Indeed, we must find a solution. We may ask ourselves why is print so valuable compared with television or

sound broadcasting. The point is that the latter two are conducted in time which vanishes and one cannot control it, whereas print is in space, which is man's far more accommodating medium for control. One has only to listen on a railway station platform to an announcement about a train specifying the particular platform and time of departure to get into a muddle, as one almost invariably does, and then consult the printed time-table which is set down in space for one to see, offering convenience and precise and important information.
I think it is right that the House of Commons should discuss this issue, and I think that as representatives of the people we can say five things to this industry. We can say, firstly, that we are against the closed shop, certainly the tightly closed shop. Secondly, I think we can say that we are against restrictive practices. Thirdly, I think we can say that we are for higher pay, and for higher pay particularly when it is based on lower costs.

Mr. Monslow: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that the employers' federation issued two pamphlets, one in 1955 and one in 1957, opposing more pay?

Mr. Pitman: I do not think the hon. Member can complain of the employers objecting to more pay if it does not add to the cost. What I suggested was that this Committee are for higher pay based on lower costs, and I think that is something of which this House should say it is in favour completely. Fourthly, I think we should say that we are for negotiations and arbitration, particularly if those negotiations and arbitrations are in conditions, as they are at the present moment, where the higher pay is there to be obtained for the negotiation of fresh agreements on restrictive practices.
Finally, I think we can say that we agree with the right hon. Member for Blyth in our fifth point, and also agree with the Minister, that we want a new joint industrial conciliation constitution or machinery, one which can organise a three-year agreement which will enable the printing industry to go forward, pay good salaries, but without any increase in cost to the consumer—the British public—and contain in it the means of avoiding such tragic failure being repeated.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: As I have been sitting here this afternoon listening to the speeches, particularly to the last two speeches, I have found it difficult to believe my ears, and I am not in the least surprised that this dispute has not already been settled if the attitude of the master printers is reflected in the speeches which we have just heard. I can plainly understand why there is difficulty in reaching agreement around the negotiating table.
I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not here, because I wanted to remind him who had introduced the controversial matters into the debate which we have had so far. I do not think that the Government can very well complain if some of us now try to put on record what we believe to be, indeed what some of us know to be, the facts in this dispute. I propose to do so, because if the national daily newspapers are suspended after Wednesday or Thursday, the general public will be denied information, and I think that it is vital in the interests of both the industry and the country that the general public should know precisely where this dispute starts. They need the historical record of how this dispute has been brought about.
In saying that, I have given an indication that I could occupy the remainder of the time until seven o'clock telling the Committee what is the position, but I want first to dispose of one or two things which have been said by hon. Members opposite and even by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I will refer, first of all, to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), who is engaged in the industry and has a personal interest in it. May I declare my own interest? I have the proud record of having belonged to the Typographical Association for forty years. I regard it as one of the finest trade unions in the country, if not the finest, with a record which no other union can show, and I will illustrate in a moment what has been the character over the years of the unions involved in this dispute. I will show their willingness as all times to settle their disputes as they ought to be settled, around the negotiating table.
The hon. Member for Bath referred to the question of demarcation and

linked with it several references to restrictive practices which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) rightly pointed out, were not in fact restrictive practices but had been in the industry for fifty or sixty years as protective measures, had always been accepted and were only now being drawn across the face of the dispute as a red herring to distract the attention of people from the causes of the dispute.
As we go further with automation and mechanisation there will be changes. What industry has suffered more than printing from mechanisation? It is true that it has recovered after the initial unemployment which mechanisation caused, but what industry has suffered more from the advent of machinery than has the printing industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps "suffer" is the wrong word to use. I do not object to automation, for I believe that automation and mechanisation can bring immense benefits. We have had it demonstrated to us this afternoon, however, that the only benefits which are wanted initially are benefits to the employers. Apparently nothing is to go to the workers out of these improvements.

Mr. Pitman: Mr. Pitman rose—

Mr. Wilkins: I will give way in a moment. In reply to a question from my right hon. Friend we were told that they have had to build additional rooms in order that the employees can play cards because there is no accommodation for them on the machine. I should very much like to know where that is happening. With the advent of machinery, by all means let us have greater productive effort. I welcome automation and I do not believe that in the end it will result in more unemployment. It will result in greater productivity, and I have no objection to it myself, but the arguments advanced this afternoon have been clearly intended to imply that these changes should not be the cause of protective measures taken by the workers on their own behalf, and I certainly would not agree with that.

Mr. Pitman: The hon. Member very kindly said that he would give way to me. On the first point which he made, I claim, and my hon. Friends will claim, that the printing industry has rightly


benefited by marvellous new developments. Otherwise, how could people be earning over £1,000 a year? Secondly, I want to make it clear that I said that it was highly desirable that such wages should be paid. It is not true to say that these benefits are intended only for the employers. There is no suggestion that they should go only to the employers. It is suggested that they should go to the workpeople and the consumers.

Mr. Wilkins: That applies to those who are still engaged in the industry and are working the machines, but not to those who are made redundant and are pushed out of the industry.
The hon. Member for Bath referred to what he called the closed shop. It was at that point that I wrote in my notes "I hope that the Minister noted who began introducing controversial subjects". Surely the hon. Member is not ignorant of the fact that, particularly in the Typographical Association, certainly over all the years that I can remember, there has been a policy of what we call the open house, although ultimately trying to obtain 100 per cent. trade union membership in the office. What other union has ever agreed to that? For those forty years, and probably very much longer, where there has been conscientious objection among the staff to becoming members of our association, we have agreed that they should remain non-members but could continue at their work until they retired. The only condition imposed was that when new men were taken on they should be trade union members.
That is what we have called the open house, and the hon. Member cannot possibly be ignorant of that fact. I state these matters to show that in this dispute we are dealing not only with the Typographical Association, the union to which I belong, but also with a body of men in (he federated unions who have always been reasonable in their attitude and approach. I hope to show that it is the employers who have always been aggressive in the printing industry.

Mr. Pitman: Can the hon. Member authoritatively assure me that any competent printer would be admitted to the Typographical Association if he had been working in a printing firm?

Mr. Wilkins: That is a very difficult question. The hon. Member's firm always insisted on a seven-year apprenticeship. Does he mean that anyone should be permitted to join who has picked up some knowledge of the business, perhaps over two or three years, when the firm in which he is a partner insists on a seven-year apprenticeship? I will say something about the seven-year apprenticeship in a moment.
The Minister of Labour opened the debate in a very careful manner, and I understand from some of my hon. Friends that from their point of view he opened it in a very wise manner. He thanked the Committee for its forbearance during the various phases of the dispute, and he said that it was time we ceased throwing wordy and provocative statements around. I am inclined to agree with that, because I think that we have almost reached the point in the history of this dispute where we might be approaching what could be called an industrial Cyprus. Over Cyprus we had the statement, "Never, never", but we know what happened. In the printing dispute we have "No negotiations" and "No, no", and in the end somebody must eat very many words before we can bring peace back to the industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth thanked the Minister for putting the facts before the Committee. The facts put before the Committee, however, were very incomplete facts. Perhaps in the Minister's opinion it was wise that the facts which he gave should be incomplete. He suggested that a referee should be appointed who should be only a referee and not an arbitrator. I am able to say that that would meet the full approval of the trade unions who are involved in this dispute. I understand that they have no objection to it.
On the question of arbitration I shall say something a little later, because I believe there are very good reasons why we object to arbitration, at least in these early stages.
I agree that we must all regret strike action at any time, and certainly we regret the necessity for it. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate features is that in the main it is the general public who suffer from inconvenience as the result. They are usually kept completely uninformed of the underlying causes of a dispute. I


would not suggest that our national dailies have shown any serious misrepresentation of the situation up to the moment. They are not at all anxious to handle this news They regard this news as dynamite. They do not want to be concerned with it if they can possibly help it. Therefore, such things as they have reported have been comparatively temperate in their content.
However, we here this afternoon in this Committee should be quite clear on the origin of the dispute. Not only that but it is also time that the true facts were put on record. I ask hon. Members to listen while I tell them about the kind of trade union they are dealing with in this matter, and what applies to the Typographical Association applies equally to the other nine trade unions associated with it.
I have in my hand a history of the Typographical Association. It is a history written by Professor Musson, of Manchester University, who was commissioned on behalf of our Association to write this history on the occasion of our centenary. I believe that we are the oldest trade union in the country. Certainly we are one of the oldest trade unions. If our origins go back to the time of the guilds we can make that claim. This history was written only on the condition that if its author undertook to write it he would be free and unfettered to say whatever he liked as a result of his researches about the trade union itself and that no one would censure his writing. This is an absolutely free, uncensored history of our Association.
This is what the author says in his preface:
My aim has been to tell 'a plain, unvarnished tale' of the development of trade unionism in the provincial letterpress printing industry from the earliest 'chapels' and trade societies down to the national Association of the present day. The book is not a laudatory account of the kind which usually appears at a centenary: in it will be found criticism as well as praise. The Association has given me open access to all its records and an entirely free hand to write the history as I found it. The views expressed herein are entirely my own, without any influence or censorship by the Association.
I quote that because I think it will add point to other quotations I want' to make, and add point and certainty to the things which I have to say, when the Committee fully understands that the author is somebody

completely independent and free from any of the unions engaged in the dispute.
The first reference I make is to what happened eight years before our Association was formed when in 1841 the Manchester secretary spoke of
'the feeling of respect and good-will shown towards us by our employers', due to the fact that 'in every dispute we have had with them, it has ever been our study to adopt a course of quiet, respectful, but determined conduct. Reason and justice have prevailed, where threatening and intimidation would have failed'. In the event of failure to settle a dispute by deputation and argument, the men were merely withdrawn after a fortnight's notice … These strikes were petty affairs, rarely involving more than one office.
I turn to page 290 of this book referring to the Association in the 1922 dispute:
They always adopted a conciliatory policy and frequently averted strikes by cautious diplomacy.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bath is listening to this. Perhaps he does not wish to do so. It says:
They always adopted a conciliatory policy and frequently averted strikes by cautious diplomacy.
I ask the Committee to recall that in the 110 years of its history the Association—and it applies to others as well—has had one official strike: one official strike in 110 years. Does this denote reckless irresponsibility in trade union leadership? Is there any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee who accuses the unionists in the printing industry of reckless and irresponsible leadership? If so, let him get up now and say so. There is no record of it, and the reason why there is no record is that the unions were either compelled, or had through arbitration, to which I shall refer in a moment, to give way to conditions with which they were not in agreement.
As I say, I shall turn to the question of arbitration in a moment, but the first thing to note in connection with this dispute is that the existing hours and wages agreement in the industry expired on 20th April last. The historical facts which led up to this are very interesting. Last September, eight months before the expiry of the agreement, the nine unions which then comprised the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation held their first meeting to decide what


should be their course of action on the expiry of the agreement.
The master printers were, of course, not ignorant of the fact that our unions were meeting. In October—I am not quite sure of the date, but I believe it was 14th October—they made the declaration which they now claim was their original offer, the declaration to the effect that they would not be prepared to consider anything further in the way of improved conditions or wages but that they were willing to continue for a further twelve months the agreement which expired on 20th April. That is exactly what they did. They knew the unions were conferring on the action they would take when the agreement expired.
Five months before 20th April, on 1st December last year, the nine trade unions notified the employers of their claim. I had better not weary the Committee with the whole of the details of this claim but I have to make some mention of it because it is necessary to correct the entirely erroneous impression created in the country as a result of figures given in reply to a Question, and printed in HANSARD, the figures being supplied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. We are not saying that those figures are inaccurate. What we do say is that they are completely misleading. As the hon. Member for Bath knows, the incidence of incentive schemes in our industry, merit money, things of that kind, can make the basic wage look very foolish when it is averaged out over the earnings in the industry.
The figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave were certainly in conflict with the facts. I am not saying that they were inaccurate. They were probably accurate as average earnings, but they must be compared with the basic wage rates of the great majority of our members which, for example in general printing are £10 3s. plus 13s. cost-of-living bonus, or £10 5s. 6d. plus 13s. bonus. When one talks in terms of average earnings in cases where incentive schemes have driven wages to a very high figure indeed one is talking about figures which are completely phoney when they are compared with the basic wage operating in the industry.
I will spare the Committee quotations from all the figures involved and content

myself with saying that the unions, in submitting their claims and having them rejected, answered the employer's objections to meeting the claims, which I gather the employers described as fantastic, by saying "If you think our claims are unreasonable tell us what you would consider reasonable." There was no response to that invitation. These are the historical facts. In a further effort to try to help to bring about a peaceful solution, the unions indicated that they would not stick rigidly to their original claims but would be prepared to reach a negotiated settlement. Again there was no response from the employers.
The only response from the employers came when they saw that the ballot, which had comprised six items and which finally gave authority to the union executives to call a strike if necessary, was carried by a majority of more than four to one. The response was an offer of a 2½ per cent. increase, ½ per cent. less than the usual arbitration award, and no decrease in hours. On the question of a decrease in hours, I would remind the Committee that in the printing industry we were asking for a 40-hour week in 1931, and that the offer of a decrease of one hour is technically of no account because most of the firms in the industry already permit it. The second hour, which one would have expected to be conceded, was promised thirteen years ago, if and when the manpower requirements of the industry could be supplied.
We say that that position has been reached and that it is possible for the industry to absorb the one hour within its present arrangements, without any increase in staff and in all probability, as we believe, without having to work overtime. The employers in their statement claim that if the unions' proposals were accepted they would increase costs by 25 per cent. We dispute that figure. We say that it is grossly exaggerated and in any case takes no account of the stage-by-stage implementation of a 40-hour week.
Why do we dispute it? In September, 1946, the "Report of a Court of Inquiry into the nature and circumstances of a Dispute between the British Federation of Master Printers and the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation" was issued as Cmd. Paper 6992. The Court of Inquiry, I believe, was appointed by my


right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) who was then Minister of Labour. Paragraph 55 of that Report, which is generally known as the Gorman Report, says:
We are of opinion that some shortening of hours of work would be beneficial to the productive capacity of the individual worker …
I am not in the least surprised, because this industry is so highly mechanised and so much of the work requires a great deal of concentration. I know from experience because I have done a great deal of machine work in the industry.
The work requires a tremendous amount of concentration and very often calls for the spelling of words which the authors of books cannot spell for themselves. I am sure that the Committee would be absolutely appalled if they saw some of the copy which a printer has to handle and which is supposed to have been writen by intellectual, intelligent people with a university education, who can neither spell nor punctuate.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wilkins: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath will confirm what I am saying. It is absolutely true and undeniable. The printers often have to put right the grammatical and punctuation mistakes—

Mr. Pitman: Spelling reform.

Mr. Wilkins: —of people who have far better pay. In addition, printers have to do the mechanical production.
Let us take the word of an employer on whether or not shorter hours would be beneficial. Before the Court of Inquiry, the manager of a printing firm employing 60 or 70 workers in general printing and trade journals gave evidence to the effect that
… a year ago there was a reduction in the hours worked in this house from 44 to 40 (a five-day week being worked in both cases'). It was stated that there was no dislocation of business and there was, in fact, an increase in production to the amount of about 4 per cent. without any increase of staff or extra overtime.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Do I understand from what the hon. Member says that union members engaged in the industry are desperately anxious to work only a 40-hour week and are prepared

to allow any number of apprentices or others to come into the industry so that they need not work any additional overtime in future?

Mr. Wilkins: It is no part of my business today to conduct trade union negotiations. They should be conducted round the table. I am simply trying to put on record, quite deliberately, the origins and causes of the dispute in order not only that this Committee may know them but that the general public outside should be fully apprised of what the dispute is about, because once the national Press ceases to appear and the public are not informed of the position we know that the usual reaction when a strike causes great inconvenience is to blame the workers without knowing the facts.

Mr. William Shepherd: Does the hon. Member think that the Committee is really capable of dealing with the minute details of the dispute? Would it not be in the interests of the Committee and the industry if he did not pursue the details any further?

Mr. James Simmons: Impertinence.

Mr. Wilkins: I can understand that what I am saying is not very acceptable to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: May I ask the hon. Member for more details? When he deals with overtime is he referring to case-room work or to machine-room work or to both?

Mr. Wilkins: Overtime is overtime in whatever department it is required. If an employer wants his machines to be running overnight or during some period of the night he can put people on overtime. According to my experience, overtime would be worked according to what happened to be the production at the moment, whether on composition or on running a set book.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member referred to the concentration required. Surely he cannot say that it requires as much concentration to do a long run on a machine as it does to set up the matter before it is run off?

Mr. Wilkins: I agree, because I was the "poor guy" who used to have to set up the matter.

Mr. George Isaacs: As a machine man, I disagree with that.

Mr. Wilkins: There are two other considerations which have to be examined. The first is a rather important point, and I hope that we will get some sort of answer to it. Who or what organisation is responsible for the adamant and obdurate attitude of the employers? Despite all that I have said about the master printers, I know sufficient about them to believe that they would not be as adamant as they have been in this dispute unless there were some other force leading them or driving them.
My colleagues in the industry—and I am now speaking not of the union executive, but of the men on strike, the men to whom I talked over the weekend—believe that the niggers in the woodpile are the British Employers' Confederation. One has only to read the Confederation's bulletins to draw that conclusion. It is all very well for Confederation members to boycott printers who have signed agreements—the Confederation has taken its printing from Water-low's because Waterlow's have been prepared to pay. There is a strong feeling that the Confederation is the basic cause of the resistance now being offered to the negotiations sought by the industry. I shall be most interested to hear what sort of information the Parliamentary Secretary has about this.
On 10th June the Confederation issued a bulletin, which spoke of
what is admittedly a high-paying industry".
We do not consider that it is a highly paid industry. The members of the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation paid a very high price for their patriotism during the war. Where all other industries were getting wage increases at a time when the country could not very well avoid meeting them, the printers restrained their demands to such an extent that, whereas during the war and in subsequent years the general rise in wages was 33 per cent., in the printing industry wages rose only 15 per cent., less than half the general rise. The printers paid the price for restraint at the behest of the Government.

Sir Beverley Baxter: During the time when the printers were so heroic, during the war, how much did soldiers' wages go up?

Mr. Wilkins: That is altogether misrepresenting the situation. I was not arguing in those terms. I was arguing in terms of the restraint which the union showed during the war when many people were getting substantial wage increases.
In my time in the industry, the printing craft unions were second in wages paid to craft unions. I am not sure of the present position, but I think that they are now ninth. There is a great deal of leeway to be made up if we are to restore ourselves to our pre-war position.
The British Employers' Confederation bulletin of 10th June said:
If what is admittedly a high-paying industry operating to some extent in a sheltered market is forced to make further concessions, employers in other industries which are facing fierce competition in overseas markets will find pressure from their own unions increased.
Here is the employers' fear clearly revealed, as we all suspected. The bulletin went on:
… self-interest alone demands that the printing employers' policy should receive the maximum support from all other employers who are customers of the industry though this may involve them in some inconvenience.
That gives the whole show away. The printing employers are being told to dig in their toes, because if a concession is made to the printing industry, employers will have to give way to workers in other industries.
I say with some pride that I doubt whether there is another industry in the country with a comparable record of tranquil and conciliatory trade union administration as that of the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation. The workers in this industry are by instinct and tradition reasonable and conciliatory, Where there has been excessive aggression, it has come from the employers in their unreasonable rejection of negotiations five months ago and their famous or infamous 22 points—and we do not disagree with them all, but some could not possibly be accepted, as the employers must know from their own knowledge of the industry. Nor is their present intransigent attitude acceptable.
I conclude by asking whether there is any hope. Of course there is hope. There is always hope if reasonable men will sit together and make a determined effort to resolve their differences. Despite all that I have said, after the


successful building up of the Joint Industrial Council in our industry, I cannot understand what I would call the defiant stupidity of the employers in this dispute. For a long time I was associated with the local Joint Industrial Council of our industry. It was highly successful. Why are we not able nationally to conduct our negotiations as successfully as we conducted them locally?
It may be that there is a hidden factor; I do not know. If there is, I can think only of the attitude of the British Employers' Confederation. I believe that it is possible for the dispute to be resolved. I pay tribute to Mr. Trevor Evans—although I am not inclined to pay a tribute to his newspaper, the Daily Express—for what he said in a television broadcast, "Press Conference", on Friday. Mr. Evans, who is industrial correspondent of his newspaper, laid down a firm basis upon which negotiations could take place. It seemed to me that his atttitude towards this problem was essentially practical and one to which no one could take great exception other than in the most minute detail.
I have a brief comment to make on arbitration. Hon. Members opposite who are connected with the industry know that on the only two occasions when disputes in the industry have been referred to arbitration, arbitration has had disastrous results for the workers. It is small wonder that they are apprehensive at the very suggestion that there should be resort to arbitration. Not only have they their own record of arbitration, but they have the thought that one can write an award into an arbitration agreement before the arbitration tribunal sits. One writes in 3 per cent. and one knows what the tribunal will do. It looks like a formula that has been provided by someone.
The strong suspicion is that the formula is provided by the Government. The Chancellor has said on a number of occasions that either we could not afford an increase, or there had to be a limit of 3 per cent. This is said side by side with all the talk we hear about the great prosperity of the country. It is said that we are wonderfully prosperous and that we have never had it so good, but that the workers must not get an increase of

wages because that will be inflationary. It looks as though these things are conditioned by an attitude of mind that says, "So far and no farther".
I said earlier that I could keep the debate going until 7 o'clock. However, as hon. Members on the other side may wish to speak I will put down my notes, because I do not want to steal all the time available. I do not often trouble the House with speeches—

Mr. Douglas Glover: It will be a long time before the hon. Member does it again.

Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Gentleman ought not to be so sure. I shall make speeches in the next Parliament, which is probably more than the hon. Gentleman will do.
I do not often trouble the House. This is not a laughing matter to the members of my industry. They are members of a trade union who would dream of striking only in the last resort. Their record shows that and it is there for anyone to see. It is a record unequalled by any trade union in the country. If the Master Printers' record was as good we would not be in the trouble that we are in now.
I hope that because of what I have said at least the general public, whose sympathy it is essential we should have, will know where the blame for this dispute lies and why we are unable to resolve it.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. S. Storey: Like hon. Members who have preceded me, I must declare an interest in this matter. I am a past president of the Newspaper Society and the chairman of a company which publishes both evening and weekly papers. My real interest in this dispute is to see that the good will which has always existed between my company and the overwhelming majority of our staff is restored and to see the men back at work. I therefore welcome the tone in which the debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).
The Minister has explained the complex nature of this dispute, and of the many organisations, unions and employers concerned, but there is one basic factor


which concerns all those organisations and unions and that is the basic wage. I feel that the basic wage is the first thing that should be settled and that it should be settled on a common front. It was, therefore, with some concern that I saw the Minister seeking to isolate the ink manufacturers from the master printers and the Newspaper Society in an endeavour to negotiate a settlement which would keep the national newspapers in production.
I appreciate what the Minister said about the provincial Press, but if the front is to be broken in favour of the national papers there is a danger that the provincial papers may seek a separate settlement. That would not be in the interests of the general printing industry as a whole. The provincial dailies are not interested in the 40-hour week which they have worked for some years. They are not much interested in the conditions which the master printers are endeavouring to secure. Their main interest is in the basic wage.
One hon. Gentleman opposite asked why the provincial newspapers were tied up with the master printers. The explanation is simple. The Newspaper Society represents both the daily and weekly newspapers. Many of the dailies are associated with weekly newspapers and it is, therefore, convenient to have one society which represents both daily and weekly newspapers. On the other hand, the number of weeklies is far greater than that of the dailies and many of the weeklies have general printing interests. Because of this the special position of the dailies tends to be overlooked in the negotiations, and master printers' interests to receive more attention.
In such circumstances there is always the danger that the daily papers may seek to enter into separate negotiations with the unions which, as I have said, would not be in the general interest of the printing industry as a whole. That danger might become more real if in any resumed negotiations full attention were not paid to the special position of the daily morning and evening papers.
One of my regrets in this dispute is the tragic consequence which the strike will have on the relations existing between the unions the staffs and the employers. By their tactics the unions

are sacrificing the good will which, in the provincial newspaper offices at any rate, it has always been our endeavour to build up. That good will is no small factor in the newspaper industry. Indeed, without it it would be very difficult to get over many of the difficulties of producing evening and morning newspapers.
Good will between the employers and the employees need not affect an employee's loyalty to his union. I can understand loyalty to the union coming first. What I cannot understand is that while the men are still drawing their wages the unions should order them to follow various forms of non-co-operation and put a ban on overtime. Nor can I understand that when so many men in the provincial newspaper offices reciprocate the good will that we have tried to build up they do not insist on the unions allowing them to ballot on whether the dispute should go to arbitration.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) mentioned the ballot which was conducted and which had overwhelming support, but it is remarkable that in that ballot paper the men were not given an opportunity to say whether, if the dispute could not be settled by negotiation, it should go to arbitration.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the members of the Newspaper Society were given the opportunity to ballot on whether they wanted to accept the terms offered to them by the unions?

Mr. Storey: We did not have a ballot, but we had special meetings of all sections of the industry, both separate and together. Representatives of all the newspapers attended, and they were overwhelmingly in favour of the action taken. There was no need for a ballot. Every member of the society can attend such meetings, but every member of a trade union cannot attend the meetings of his executive and express his view. It was a great mistake that the men were not given the opportunity to ballot on this question.
When this dispute is over, as we hope it will be very soon, we should pay close attention to what the Minister said about conciliation machinery. The last two disputes in the newspaper industry have been marred by the tactics of the unions, who imposed restrictions on production


while the men were still at work such action will always do harm. I hope that we shall make every effort to bring into force conciliation machinery to enable us to settle disputes and prevent such action in future.
What is needed now is the resumption of negotiations or arbitration. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need for further negotiations, and I support his argument, but I suggest that we might have a compromise. The two parties could meet and try to negotiate the basic wage—which is a fundamental thing affecting all parties—and, perhaps, the special payment which the newspapers have always made over and above the basic wage. If we can settle those questions round a table I do not see why we cannot get back to work and send the conditions to arbitration. I should like to see that course taken. If it were we might very well see an early resumption of work throughout the industry.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: The Committee seems once again to have been put into an embarrassing situation when a strike is in the offing. I am at a loss to understand why the Labour Party has asked for a debate. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) made it clear that he did not want to introduce any controversy and did not expect others to do so, but I do not see how we can have a debate on an extremely important public matter with some controversy. The House of Commons should decide how it is to deal with this kind of subject in future.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we had our responsibility to the public at large, and that was why there was a need for a debate, but the Minister of Labour was invited to open it, to make a statement, and to follow an extremely non-controversial line. As the debate has gone on, however, it has been apparent that several back bench Members have had some quite pertinent things to say.
There are two main problems. First, we much decide how the House of Commons deals with such an important subject at this when it is "hot", and secondly, how to arrange a general

debate—not when a specific matter is "hot" in the public mind—on the general question of employers' federations, trade unions, wages and conditions, and how these bodies ought to conduct their affairs in an era of full employment and, possibly, of no inflation. There has been a year of comparative stability in the price index, although there may be some argument whether certain prices have risen or have fallen.
This is a new factor, and it is no use the Committee closing its eyes to the matter and saying, "If new machines are put in and new processes are instituted the workers must get an increase in wages." Out of what does that increase come? Two years ago, in a textile firm in which I had an interest, the question of an increase in wages came before the directors. At that time the firm was making no money at all, as many textile firms have failed to do since 1951. I asked how the increase was to be paid and I was told, "The Government will see to that." Because they were continuing with their policy of inflation, every firm knew that if it increased its wages to keep in line with other people, the value of money would fall and nobody would gain anything, but if a firm said, "We cannot pay, because we have no money, it would put our costs up," that did not matter.
It seems as if that situation has changed, and I hope that it has changed for a long time ahead. This situation brings a completely new factor into the problem of wage negotiations. At a later date the House will have to examine the way in which wage negotiations should be conducted under these conditions. This is a matter upon which the House should have a view, so as to be able to give a lead to the country, and not a matter which it should hand over to trade unions, employers' federations—

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Mr. C. R. Hobson(Keighley)And the Law Society.

Mr. Holt: —and the Law Society.
This House should be concerned with matters which are of vital interest to our people. This is one of the great problems which must be tackled in the next ten years.
There has been talk about restrictive practices—or protective practices, as


they have been called this afternoon—but I would point out that they are by no means all operated by trade unions. I can think of some fairly good protective practices which are carired out by the great national newspapers. One of the reasons for the great excitement last week was that the great newspapers have an agreement that if one stops they all stop. What is that if it is not a protective practice on the part of the employers? We all know that these arrangements exist. They should be examined with the other matters.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the Manchester Guardian?

Mr. Holt: The Manchester Guardian has found some way round this problem.
I want to underline a point which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), which should be discussed closely in a wider debate. He said that if the increase in wages and reduction of hours demanded by the trade unions was granted it would have a damaging effect on some firms, both large and small. Some small firms might be able to pay the increase, but others might not. There is a logic which must be followed through here.
I have some sympathy with the remark made on other occasions by the Minister of Labour, that we should not look upon strikes in too tragic a manner because they are part of a healthy industrial system and they are settled in the end. There is a little loss of wealth, but we must not mind that because it all comes out in the wash. The right hon. Gentleman's figures today may support that view, but I do not think that he would say that strikes are a good thing, which should be encouraged. We should con-side how best we can avoid them.
Let us take the question of mass negotiations over the country as a whole. What is one of the problems which the House of Commons is often concerned with, and I think no one more than members of the Labour Party? It is unemployment in the remote areas. I remember hearing at a famous by-election in Devon of a small glove factory which, literally, could not afford to pay the increase in wages which had recently been negotiated with that industry on a

national scale. It was quite a small firm, employing 30 or 40 people.
The employer said to the local trade union representative, "If I have to pay this—something quite substantial, 10 per cent.—I shall have to close down. Will you explain that to my workpeople?" At the time I was there, as the result of talks within the firm, the workpeople had asked the employer to postpone closing down for six months and said that they would not take a wage increase while talks were held to see whether there was any other way out of the difficulty.
I do not think that it is any use burking this issue. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and said, "Are you suggesting that there should be different rates of pay in different parts of the country for the same job?" Frankly, I am. I do not think that it is any use talking about the problems of the Highlands, or of the South-West or, indeed, inaccessible parts of Lancashire.

Mr. Monslow: That argument would never be accepted in the mining industry.

Mr. Holt: If the mines close down there are also no wages. We cannot have it both ways. If people like to live in a remote part of the country and are not concerned about whether they get exactly the same amount as someone who works in London, why should not they be allowed to do that job at a wage which is somewhat less than they would get in London, or in Barrow for that matter?
These are some of the problems which have to be faced. If there is to be an end to inflation for the time being and if some printing firms cannot pay a large increase and others can, then what is to happen? Those who can pay, do—that is obviously what will happen in the end—and those who cannot will have to go out of business. Is that what the members of the unions want? This will not happen the day after a strike is finished. Employees will go back for a while and the employer will struggle for his trade and endeavour to make both ends meet, but in the end some employers will cut down their staff, and little by little these people will go out of business.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Holt: No.
This particularly applies to the printing industry, which is spread out all over the country in small towns and villages where local printing is done. These are the people most likely to be hit by a large wage award which cannot be afforded other than by the most successful and modern firms. Is it, in fact, desired that these people should be put out of business? Would not that worsen the problem of work in the remote areas?
I feel that there are two problems of which the Committee should take notice. One is how the Committee should take note of disputes of this kind when they come up. I think that we should debate them freely. I rather deplore this "peace" between the two Front Benches in which nothing controversial should be said. I think that every one should say exactly what he thinks about these matters, which are of great public importance. Secondly, I hope that at an early date we shall have a wide range of discussions on our industrial relations and industrial arrangements in the context of a period, which we hope will continue, of full employment with little or no inflation.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Brian Batsford: I wish to detain the Committee for only a few minutes and to mention one aspect of printing, which has not been covered—by that, I mean books. As a publisher of books, I have to declare an interest in this subject.
Although most hon. Members realise that publishers have handled print for a long time, it is only in a very few cases that they print books themselves. The majority of publishers commission books to be printed and bound, and they are, so to speak, the customers in this dispute.
Although we are apt to think in terms of printing in relation to periodicals, papers and books, book printers represent only about 10 per cent. of the printing trade. I do not think that hon. Members would disagree that books as a means of communication are a vital medium for the spreading of knowledge and learning, as some hon. Members have already mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has, indeed, recommended a Government grant of £500,000 to make books cheaper

overseas. At present, 37 per cent. of the printed book trade turnover in books goes overseas, amounting in all to about £23 million. Any appreciable rise in printing costs is bound to affect the book trade, and make books more expensive.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) when he said that we want a gradual increase in wages rather than jumps. There is nothing more irritating to a publisher than to find his costs going up every three or four years by as much as 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. instead of their being spread over a gradual period of time. Book prices, if they were to face an increase in printing costs of 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., would not, of course, go up by that amount. Printing affects about half the cost of book production. That would mean that the price of a book would go up by about 10 per cent. I would say that book prices have not risen as steeply as printing costs since before the war; nor have printing costs risen as steeply as wages. If we take 1939 as 100, we find that today printing prices are 285. The wages of a skilled worker are 306 and of an unskilled worker 326. By comparison, book prices have not trebled, they have only, roughly, doubled.
If the 2½ per cent., suggested by the Federation as a possible increase in wages, together with a reduction of one hour in the working week, were accepted, it would mean an increase of 5 per cent. in printing costs; that is, provided agreement is reached on an improvement in productivity methods. But I think it true to say that as customers we have been rather concerned at the length of the list of what are by some people termed "protective" practices, and by others "restrictive" practices which were mentioned this afternoon—22 points which have come to light only as a result of this dispute. I refer particularly—this has been mentioned by many hon. Members—to the apprenticeship scheme which to many of us seems designed to avoid expansion in the trade.
The printing industry is an industry of craftsmen. Not only that, it is a bespoke industry. Unlike many other manufacturers, the industry does not produce or provide commodities to be sold. It produces work which has been


commissioned by other people, like publishers. It performs a vital service to the community. It is a vital means of communication, and under these circumstances it is all the more regrettable that the negotiating machinery within the trade itself has broken down. It is to that negotiating machinery that we should return.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. George Isaacs: I suppose that, like everyone else, I should declare my interest—but I "ain't got none." I am no longer an official of the trade; I no longer work in the trade. But I have a great interest in what is happening in the trade and that is the interest which I want to declare.
I have been a little surprised at the manner in which hon. Members opposite have spoken. They have put in a special plea for their point of view in connection with their interest in the industry. Several referred to the failure of the Joint Industrial Council. I had hoped to follow completely the line and the spirit in which this debate was opened by the Minister of Labour. But the right hon. Gentleman also referred to this matter. He did not think that the machinery was fully used. I wonder how many hon. Members opposite know what that machinery is.
There is a conciliation committee to which every dispute inside the industry has to be taken. It consists of four people in the trade, four employers and four trade unionists with their own chairman. The committee discusses and settles 99 per cent. of the disputes which arise in the industry. It never gives a decision, it only expresses an opinion, but that opinion is always accepted. How is it possible to get four trade unionists and four employers to sit down together and settle this matter, which affects the whole of the industry? I say to hon. Members, "Please understand what you are talking about when you talk about this conciliation machinery which has never been used in this case."
Even the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) knows that it has been used hundred of times with complete and absolute success. I hope that he will take to this conciliation machinery that wonderful story of the big rotary press

which took up so much room that it was not possible to get all the workmen round it, so that they had to put up a small smoking room where the men could smoke and play cards because they were not wanted on the machine. I should like to meet those fellows.
Among the unions in the trade there is one known as "Natsopa". That is me—I coined that name fifty years ago to name a union which had a long string of initials that could not always be used.
Reference has been made to apprenticeships and not taking enough apprentices. Let me tell the Committee about what I know happened up to ten years ago, when I was still a union official. I do not know what has happened since, but I can say that in the London printing machine minders' trade society the quota of apprentices accepted by the employers was such that as young apprentice machine minders came out of their time, the practice was to sack them and tell them to find a job somewhere else. But there were no other jobs, and up to ten years ago 200 young skilled apprentices who could not get jobs as machine minders joined my union as printers' assistants.
Is it suggested that the whole thing should be thrown open so that we can apprentice as many as we like, keep the best and throw the rest on the scrapheap? That was what went on and we are not going to put up with it any longer—I say "we", but, of course, I am no longer in the trade.
We heard the story of the provincial printer coming to London to do a night's work and going back again. I wonder where he went to. We heard another story—I cannot remember which hon. Gentleman opposite told it, because I was so amazed that I forgot to make a note of his name. Printing machines are standard all over the world and they are running at top speed all over the world; except here in England, where they are running at a restricted rate. Why? Who runs the shop? Do hon. Members mean to tell me that there are not enough overseers and managers in the printing trade to see that the machines are run at the right speed?
We shall not find better printing anywhere else in the world than in England. Our master printers and our working printers do the best job in the world.


What is the proof? We hear talk about foreign trade stealing business away. We are told that £5 million worth of imported printing comes into this country from the Continent. The same broadsheet issued by the employers did not mention the £20 million worth of British printing going abroad.

Mr. Wilkins: More than that.

Mr. Isaacs: Hearing some of these stories I am reminded of the old saying, "Willing to wound, but afraid to strike."
I want from the hon. Member for Bath the names and details, and the places, people and unions concerned in the accusations which he has made. The hon. Gentleman has promised to give that information to me and I await it.

Mr. Pitman: I will confirm that promise. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to realise that this export printing is largely a question of content and not of quality. I am not running down the quality. Every publisher in London is selling more than 33⅓ per cent. of his books outside the country.

Mr. Isaacs: Well, after all, that is exporting it. I think that it was the hon. Gentleman who used the expression
…a rose,
By any other name, would smell as sweet.
Exports by any other name bring in the same amount of money.
The hon. Member for Bath said that he went to the Bath Trades Council and explained something about—I forget what it was that he explained—but I wonder whether he explained fully his wonderful opinion about the closed shop. We have heard a lot about the closed shop and the non-trade unionist who has a conscience, and all the rest of it.
I remember a man coming to work for a newspaper for which I worked many years ago and he said he had a conscientious objection to being a member of a trade union. My old dad, who was the "father" of the chapel—the common phrase now is "shop steward" but that is the good old-fashioned phrase—said to the boss, "We have conscientious objections to working with a conscientious objector"—and that settled it. Ever since I was eighteen years old I have held a trade union card. I have never worked with a non-trade unionist

and I never would. I lost many a job because of that. But non-trade unionists are always prepared to take advantage of what we gain for them.
Is there any industry which is more efficient than the printing industry, or which has more readily accepted the introduction of fast-running machinery and improved presses? Did the compositors in this country indulge in any "Luddite" practices when the linotype machine came into operation? They accepted it and worked it and look what that brought. The hon. Member for Bath will know what I am talking about when I ask how many runs can you get out of a Platen? Can you today get only 500 or 600 runs with a Platen? And what about a Wharfedale? I remember feeding a Wharfedale with a 4-crown sheet on it and I was a clever boy if I could turn out 700 an hour. What happens today? With a modern machine a jobbing printer can print an 8-crown—not a 4-crown—sheet at the rate of 2,500 an hour without a feeder at all.
Who said that we were standing in the way of true efficiency in the printing industry? It is true that we have asked for terms and for agreements. Who is talking about restrictive practices and the cost of living? Are we to be always paid on the fodder basis? Are we to see new machinery coming in, with enormous improvements, and allow ourselves to work at all sorts of cock-eyed hours in the printing room so that all the benefit shall be passed over to the shareholders? Are we to say, "We will be content with these conditions", or are we to meet the employers around the table to get new agreements for the future?
In the few moments remaining at my disposal I want to refer to the ink dispute. It is astonishing to me to read the statements that have been made about it. The first part of one of the issued statements is completely true. The ink makers have had a long history of harmonious relationships with their employees, but they have always followed the Master Printers. The ink workers' union was created in 1918 by the people in the trade, while many of the workers were at the war. It came into being because there were three generous and broad-minded employers who said, "When these boys come back they ought not to come back to the rotten


wages and conditions that they have been getting, but we cannot pay more unless other employers also pay more. "I said, "All right. Let us form a union and when the boys come back let them have an agreement setting out what wages are to be paid."
That was more or less what happened. The wages were set out in the agreement, but the men did not get the wages until they joined the union so they joined the union and got them. I say now to the employers in the ink industry, "Do not continue to be tin cans tied on the tail of the dog, the master printers. Enter into negotiation with the employees, on the understanding that they are prepared to make a settlement, so that we can get a complete settlement in the industry."
Many of the references we read in the newspapers are to Mr. Briginshaw, Mr. Willis, Mr. Eastwood and Mr. "Somebody Else." I would point out to the Committee that Briginshaw can only do what his union executive tells him. I know, because I was in the job that he is in. The general secretary of a trade union is not just cock of the walk and king of the dunghill. He has to do what he is told and what his trade union executive tells him to do. I say in all seriousness that a man in Briginshaw's position will do his very best to secure peace in his industry.
I have promised to sit down at a quarter to seven to let the Parliamentary Secretary get in his reply, and I will try to keep my promise, but I must refer to something which was said about the compositor having to correct the spelling and read the writing of authors and others who send in manuscripts. That remark takes my mind back sixty years, to the day when I first worked in the printing trade. I was a reader's boy and I worked on the Methodist Times. We used to print sermons from people like the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes. Talk about bad spelling and bad writing; there was more bad language over Hugh Price Hughes' sermons than over anything else!
The Minister of Labour said that there were, after all, only the methods of arbitration, conciliation, the referee and the court of inquiry for settling the dispute. Again, I must declare an interest, because I know something about the job that the right hon. Gentleman

is doing. I did it myself during the last war. I know how gingerly one has to tread in these matters. I say to the Minister of Labour, "Call the parties together and see whether you can start the ball rolling." Many years ago, when I was chairman of the Joint Industrial Council's conciliation machinery, there was a dispute between a large firm and a big section of one of our great trade unions. I believe that I can see an official of that trade union sitting in the Gallery now.
I called the parties together and I got the conciliation committee to take this line, "We will sit here and we will not go away until a settlement is reached. If either of you wishes to break away then you are responsible for continuing the dispute." I kept them there from six in the afternoon until five o'clock the next morning. I do not know whether we wore them out, but we did get a settlement.
I therefore ask the Minister to call the parties together. I also say to the employers and the workers, "You are in the ring now, and you have got the gloves on. How many bruised heads, black eyes, broken noses and cauliflower ears do you want? You know that you have eventually to sit down and talk." The Minister of Labour has said that the parties will have to come together. We do not want the parties to get involved once again in the details of the dispute, but to find out how to settle it.
I hope that the Minister of Labour will issue that invitation to the parties. After my long association with these wonderful workpeople, all friends of mine, I say to them, "Get out of the ring. Get round a table and tell the Federation of the employers' organisations where they get off."

6.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): Those of us who have just heard the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) will regret that we do not hear him more often. I am foremost in my regrets that none of us will hear him in the next Parliament.
I will begin my speech by recalling an undertaking which I understand was given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Friday when a deputation


was taken to see him about a matter which has been mentioned a number of times in the last few days but has not been mentioned in the debate tonight, the question of picketing. I would like to make it clear on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the 1906 Trades Disputes Act permits peaceful picketing for two purposes: for peacefully obtaining or communicating information or peacefully persuading someone to work or not to work. Under the 1875 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act picketing remains a criminal offence if it goes beyond these peaceful purposes.
I understand that the law on this subject is perfectly clear. The duty of the police is equally clear. It is to enforce the law. My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that the police will not interfere with peaceful picketing but that they must quite clearly take action to prevent obstruction, disorder or damage to property, and to protect the citizens of this country from intimidation.
Both the right hon. Member for Southwark and the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) have drawn attention to the need for more talking. I think one of the main points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that there had not been enough talking and that there was a need for more talking in the future. I do not think it necessary to draw his attention or that of the Committee to the meeting which was held on Saturday between the British Federation of Master Printers and the unions having as its objective the removal of any misconception which might have existed and to try to see if procedure could be devised which would make it possible to reopen negotiations. Secondly, I do not think it necessary to remind him of the conversations which have been taking place today between the ink makers on the one side and Natsopa on the other. I will try to give the Committee the latest information in my possession about these talks.
I wish to say one thing to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey), who referred earlier to discussions which had taken place before these discussions I have mentioned and suggested that it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to negotiate a

separate settlement for the national newspapers. I should make clear what my right hon. Friend's objective was in calling in the parties to the dispute. His objective, as he said this afternoon, was to try to achieve an armistice in the printing ink dispute until the other main dispute could be settled in order to allow the national newspapers to continue. This, as he also said this afternoon, was because a great many thousands of men and women would be out of jobs if the dispute was not settled, workers who were in no way parties to the dispute, quite apart from the large number of men and women who in time will be thrown out of work indirectly as a result of this main dispute.
I come to the question which has been discussed a certain amount this afternoon and which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Blyth, the question of a referee. My right hon. Friend, when speaking earlier in the debate, said that the idea of a referee had been mentioned in the past by himself and the right hon. Member for Blyth suggested that what in fact was necessary at present was a referee in the sense of a distinguished chairman conducting negotiations between the two sides. I think the same idea was in the mind of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). As my right hon. Friend said, the question whether the referee should be a chairman of the discussions making suggestions from time to time, or should be a referee in the ordinary sense—that is a giver of decisions—goes to the heart of the matter. This was the basis of a certain amount of difference of opinion, I understand, in the negotiations recently.
I think the right hon. Member will agree, and the right hon. Member for Southwark will also be with me, that if in fact the referee is to act in the way suggested by the right hon. Member the Chief Industrial Commissioner can probably do that job extremely well himself. He has been doing it for a long time. I am quite sure that anyone with experience of such negotiations in the Ministry of Labour would seem to be the obvious man to conduct this kind of discussion. What he cannot do, and what I think none of us would think he should do, would be to act as a person who gives a decision.
Therefore, the choice comes down—as it has come down in these discussions in


the past—to this, that on the one side it is desired that the referee should be a sort of amateur chief industrial commissioner conducting the negotiations and making helpful suggestions, and on the other side, that the referee should have the power to come to a decision which both sides would accept. I say that because I should not like the Committee to feel that the idea put forward by the right hon. Member, which certainly was closely considered by my right hon. Friend, had not been explored. It has teen explored. It was suggested and discussions took place on the part that a referee could play. Indeed, my right hon. Friend feels very strongly that it may be possible in future to return to the idea which has been discussed today.
My right hon. Friend promised earlier that I would try to give the Committee the news of the important talks which have been taking place today between Natsopa on the one side and the printing ink manufacturers on the other. Natsopa felt, as we all feel, that a settlement would be highly desirable, a settlement which would permit ink supplies to flow and therefore keep the national newspapers publishing. We all feel it would be desirable if this ink dispute could be removed from the scene and some armistice could be reached in order to allow the national newspapers to continue.
The employers at the discussions today made an offer which, basically, was similar to the offer which the printing employers have made in the past, that there should be an increase of 5s. for the men and an hour off the working week. They also suggested some six points which could be discussed in the interests of productivity, which the right hon. Member mentioned earlier today. They also mentioned that they were prepared to go to arbitration.
On the other side—I am giving the Committee these facts because I think it necessary that we should know exactly where we stand—the unions made a counter proposal that there should be a minimum increase of 10 per cent., and that there should be a minimum reduction of the working week to 40 hours. At the same time they expressed their willingness to co-operate on productivity questions directly the settlement was reached.
It was felt that on the basis of the employers' offer and the unions' counter offer there was at present no basis for a further discussion of this issue. At present, that is the situation which exists between the ink manufacturers and Natsopa.
My right hon. Friend said earlier in the debate that there were basically three ways to end this dispute. He mentioned the possibility of a court of inquiry and gave reasons, which I believe the Committee thought convincing, why such a possibility was not likely to be particularly helpful in this case. He then mentioned the possibility of arbitration, and the Committee knows the very different reasons why arbitration at the moment seems not to be a possible answer to the problem. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the method of conciliation. On his behalf I should like to repeat what he said earlier, that the services of our Department continue to be available. The Committee will be aware of several occasions, both in the last few days and earlier, when the parties have come together in the Ministry of Labour to conduct negotiations and discussions and to see whether a common ground existed for discussions to be continued in the future.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the danger of a mistimed intervention, with which again I think the Committee this afternoon was in agreement. I see that the President of the Inkmakers' Society said after the discussions which took place today:
I do not see any point at which discussion can begin at this moment".
He then added:
We shall do what we can to think one up.
I can only say to the Committee that if either side believes that it can think up a basis on which discussions can be resumed, either in this dispute or in the main dispute about which discussions took place on Saturday, my right hon. Friend is certainly ready—if he can see the prospect of progress which I think the Committee agrees is important—to act again and try to do his best to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any discussion about the added difficulty which has been created by certain local newspapers, like the Liverpool Post, in sacking


their reporters and so complicating the whole question of any type of negotiation? Has any discussion or reference been made to that?

Mr. Wood: The Committee will be well aware that as a result of this main dispute there has been this important and subsidiary dispute between the printing ink manufacturers and Natsopa and there have also been a number of other complications, one of which the hon. Lady has mentioned, and others which are in the minds of the Committee. Clearly the basis of a settlement of all these subsidiary disputes lies in the resolution of the main dispute, which is what concerns the Committee at the moment.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Bryan]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have been considering what is the most convenient course for the House to adopt on this Bill and the various Instructions which are set down about it.
I propose, when the Bill has been read a Second time, to call the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and other right hon. and hon. Members, which is an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 9.
First, however, we have to decide whether to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I apprehend that there may be points in the Bill other than Clause 9 on which hon. Members wish to speak. If so, in view of the fact that we are to have a debate later, focused on Clause 9, I ask them to leave out from any remarks which they think of making on Second Reading and reference to Clause 9, because we shall deal with that later.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. With respect, I think that the procedure which you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, will be very convenient. May I take it that you will also call the Instruction in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), which deals with an entirely separate and rather shorter point? The Instruction is:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend the Bill to conform with the terms of the Agreement between the Corporation of London and the London County Council, dated 6th April, 1959, relating to the storage of horticultural produce and containers, and to annex the Agreement as a Schedule to the Bill, in accordance with S.O. 157 (Agreement to be annexed to bill).

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I shall call that in due course, but we shall first deal with the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West.

Mr. Albert Evans: Further to that point of order. I hope that the House will accept the suggestion which you have made, Mr. Speaker, and that in our discussions on Second Reading we shall not refer extensively to Clause 9. I am happy to accept that suggestion, and I think that the remainder of the House will also agree. I suppose, however, that it would not be out of order if on Second Reading an hon. Member referred to Clause 9 inadvertently.

Mr. Speaker: It would not be out of order, but I have suggested a certain procedure for the convenience of the House by which no hon. Member's right to criticise the Bill is in any way impaired, because, if the Bill is read a Second time, we shall later have a discussion focused upon Clause 9, which I understand is the chief point of criticism of the Bill. Does any hon. Member rise to speak on Second Reading?

7.3 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: As you have said, Mr. Speaker, the main Clauses for discussion in the debate later this evening are those dealing with the marketing provisions in Islington, but this Bill has 23 Clauses and I should like to refer to one or two matters which are contained in it, other than marketing.
Incidentally, may I express my thanks to the Chairman of Ways and Means


and, presumably, the Leader of the House for obtaining in a slightly unorthodox but nonetheless suitable form extra copies of the Bill so that these are available to hon. Members for the debate?
Because of my connection with local government, I was interested to see Clause 18 in the Bill. In Clause 18 we see the continuation of what appears to be becoming a trend for local authorities' superannuation funds. The idea of investing superannuation fund money in equity shares and similar shares first came out in the publication presented by the Labour Party entitled National Superannuation, in which attention was drawn to the fact that superannuation fund money should perhaps be invested in other stock than normal Government guaranteed stock.
At that time this idea was denounced by a large number of hon. Members opposite as a back-door way to Socialism and back-door nationalisation. A host of other phrases of that kind were used. Indeed, there were objections by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in the debates which we have just concluded on the National Insurance Bill. I must, therefore, express considerable surprise to see that a highly respectable corporation, which has probably almost a 100 per cent. Conservative membership, is putting forward in Clause 18 a proposal which will enable it to invest its superannuation fund money in equity stocks, thus bringing about what was said to be back-door public ownership of private joint stock companies.
The first local authority to make this type of proposal was the Manchester City Corporation, a Labour-controlled authority, which decided that it would be a good idea if it could invest some of its superannuation funds in other than Government guaranteed stock, of one kind or another. A year later the London County Council, another Labour-controlled authority, made similar proposals. The Manchester City Corporation took exactly as many words as the City of London Corporation has taken in this Bill to lay down the proposal. The London County Council found a way of doing exactly the same thing in about four lines.
The proposal in Clause 18 is word for word the same as the Clause approved by Parliament in the Manchester Corporation Bill, except for one very big and I think very important difference. The number of words is the same, and the words themselves are exactly the same, until we come to near the end of subsection (1) (ii). While the Manchester City Corporation and the London County Council were content to obtain powers from Parliament to enable them to invest up to one-quarter of the total amount of money in their superannuation fund in equity stocks of one kind or another, the City Corporation, a 100 per cent. Tory authority, wishes to be far more Socialist than the other two authorities and asks for powers to invest up to one-half of the total assets of the fund in equities and other stocks of that kind.
Apart from the substitution of one-half for one-quarter, the words in the Clause are exactly the same as those contained in the Manchester Corporation Act passed by the House nearly two years ago. At first glance anyone would assume that the request was exactly the same as that of the Manchester Corporation, which Parliament approved in the Manchester Corporation Bill. One of my hon. Friends suggests that the City Corporation is twice as Socialist. One could almost say that, and one is surprised that a provision of this nature is being inserted by the City Corporation, which is the most Conservative of all local authorities. I am surprised that a solidly Conservative authority of this nature wishes to go in for what hon. Members opposite have called back-door nationalisation and back-door public ownership. The City Corporation apparently thinks that it should have powers to invest up to one-half of its superannuation fund money in equity shares.
I do not wish to go into the question whether, after what we heard in debate last week, it is desirable for superannuation fund money, money held on trust, to be invested in the type of shares which can be dealt with on the Stock Exchange in the way in which certain interests have been dealing with shares in the last few months. You would in any case probably rule that out of order, Mr. Speaker. I must ask, however, why the City Corporation, having lifted in its


entirety the Manchester Corporation Clause, wishes to have power to invest up to one-half of the superannuation fund in equities whereas the Manchester Corporation, the London County Council and, through the London County Council Act, the Metropolitan borough councils have been satisfied with obtaining powers from Parliament to invest up to one-quarter of their superannuation fund money in this type of stock.
I think that the time is probably coming when we ought to have general legislation covering all local authorities in this matter. We realise that it is the normal practice for one or two authorities to introduce provisions of this nature and eventually for general powers to be given to all local authorities, but when that time is reached, shall we decide that the proportion should be one-quarter or one-half? If Parliament has set the pattern by approving the proposal of two local authorities, Manchester City Corporation and the L.C.C., that they should have power to invest up to 25 per cent. in equities, we ought to be given some good reason why the City Corporation wants to go to 50 per cent. If this is not done, as the next few years pass we may find that most local authorities which introduce local government Bills will ask for authority to invest half of the money in equities. We ought to be given some explanation why this provision is contained in the Bill, since it is so different from that in the Manchester and London County Council Acts.
I notice also that the Bill makes certain proposals about the preservation and proper keeping of deer in Epping Forest. The only way in which I would have known that there were deer in Epping Forest is that, having been through the forest by car, I have suddenly come across notices warning me that deer might come across the road. I must confess never having seen deer in the forest, but I assume from the notices that they are there.
I understand that Epping Forest was bought up in pieces by the City Corporation during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I understand also that before that time the deer there and the rights to vert and venison were the property of the Crown. Apparently

in February, 1870, the House of Commons passed a Resolution asking Her Majesty, as she then was, if
she would take such measures as in her judgment she might deem most expedient in order that Epping Forest might be preserved as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.
Her Majesty replied that she was graciously pleased to express
her concurrence … in the desire that open spaces in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis might, as far as possible, be preserved for the enjoyment of her people.
That Resolution became in due course the Epping Forest Act, 1871. Conservators of the forest were set up. The City proceeded apace to buy up some more open space in the area.
The City Corporation in the Epping Forst Act, 1878, managed to persuade the House that, as the Corporation owned such a large proportion of the area, they themselves might be made the conservators of the forest. The City Corporation, as the conservators of the forest, are instructed in Clause 4 of the 1871 Act to preserve the deer as objects of ornament in the forest.
I notice that the Bill which we are discussing provides for the setting up of a deer sanctuary adjoining the forest. I did not know what the legal meaning of "adjoining" was. I looked it up in a certain dictionary, but I was not very much clearer afterwards. I understand that, generally speaking, it would not be land in the forest, but would presumably be some more land owned by the Corporation abutting on to the forest and which it intends to make a sanctuary for deer.
Are the deer to be herded out from Epping Forest into this area? The deer are possibly a danger to traffic and themselves in the forest, as more and more people use it. If that is the intention, it seems to conflict with the virtual instruction given to the City Corporation in Clause 4 of the Act of 1878 that the deer must be preserved as an object of ornament in the forest itself. I hope that we can be given some information about the intention of the City as regards this proposal. Does the Corporation intend to get rid of the deer from the forest and put them into a certain compound where they will be safe and can be properly looked after and where the City Corporation can make regulations


governing admission? Are they to be taken permanently from Epping Forest, which would conflict with Clause 4 of the Act of 1878, or is this new area intended primarily as a place where the deer can be taken temporarily so that they can return to the forest and, as Clause 4 provides, ornament the forest for the benefit of all those who use it?
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, because I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the Metropolitan provisions in the Bill for dealing with the Lord Mayor's Show and other topics. I wished to refer to those two points because they are very important. I hope that before we conclude the Second Reading we can be given some information about why the City Corporation wants this power to invest one-half of its superannuation fund in equities and what its intentions are with regard to the powers referring to the preservation of deer.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I intervene to express the hope that at least some of the Bill, if not all of it, will pass through the House tonight. For that reason, I shall probably find myself at odds with my hon. Friends who represent the Metropolitan Borough of Islington, a borough which I confess that I do not know as well as other parts of the Metropolis. It is indeed a rather fearsome thought that we are having a debate tonight in which all three of my hon. Friends who represent Islington will be taking part. I believe that this has never happened before in the history of this Parliament and it may be a long time before it happens again.

Mr. Reynolds: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), but I cannot let go unchallenged the statement that the three hon. Members from Islington have not taken part in the same debate previously. Housing, as the House will hear later, is a very great problem in Islington. I can assure my hon. Friend that all three of us have spoken in one day during debates on housing.

Mr. Lipton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) for that correction, which perhaps will make it unnecessary

for all three hon. Members representing Islington to take part in tonight's debate. That will provide a better opportunity for other hon. Members interested in other aspects of the Bill to take part in the debate.
I do not know about the Metropolitan Cattle Market in Islington. All I remember is that at one time there was the Caledonian Market, which for some reason had its existence terminated. I suggest that any reasonable proposal which will help to alleviate the deplorable conditions prevailing at present in Covent Garden Market should be sympathetically considered. Those of us who have occasion to pass through central London know what an immense problem is constituted by the existence of Covent Garden Market in the heart of London. There should be some provision to solve the storage problem, which is very grievous in Covent Garden. Suitable provision should be made in other parts of the Metropolis, which I believe is the intention of the Bill.
I see that you, Mr. Speaker, do not want me to develop that point at too great length. For that reason, I shall confine myself to what I regard, from the point of view of the general public, as at least one of the most important Clauses, namely Clause 5, which relates to Lord Mayor's Day. For many years now I have endeavoured with different Governments and different Home Secretaries to persuade the authorities concerned to take some action as a result of which Lord Mayor's Day could be held on a Saturday. That would be to the convenience of all those people who have business to do in the City on an ordinary weekday and who have hitherto found themselves frustrated in a variety of ways, such as being prevented from keeping appointments and having their cars diverted into a mass of unusual routes, simply for the purpose of enabling the Lord Mayor's procession to take place on the statutory day, which could be almost any day in the week except a Sunday.
It has sometimes happened that Lord Mayor's Day, as appointed by Statute, fell on a Saturday. The result was that very large numbers of school children, who could not possibly see the Lord Mayor's Show on an ordinary day, had


an opportunity to see it, but that has happened only on very rare occasions. Therefore, there are many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children in the Metropolitan area who have never been able to see the Lord Mayor's Show.
Clause 5 will surmount that difficulty and provide the people of London with an opportunity to see what is regarded as a joyful and festive occasion without causing disruption and inconvenience to large numbers of their fellow citizens. Whatever conclusion the House may come to tonight on the consideration of the Bill, I hope that very careful steps will be taken to ensure that something that I have been struggling to obtain for many years will not be blocked at the last moment. I doubt very much whether the City Corporation would have decided upon including this Clause in the Bill but for the very good example set by the authorities concerned with the Trooping the Colour, as a result of which the Trooping the Colour will now always be held on Saturdays. It was only after that announcement was made that the final inducement, apparently, took effect and the City Corporation decided to amend the appropriate legislation that would enable the Lord Mayor's Show to take place on a Saturday. It will be a surprise to many hon. Members that the Calendar Act, 1751, had to be amended to achieve this happy result.
I appeal to my hon. Friends who represent the different constituencies in the Metropolitan Borough of Islington, however, not to be too persistent in their criticism of Clause 9 and other parts in the Bill which they may not like very much at present. I am sure that the London County Council, being a reasonable authority, and the City of London Corporation, being, perhaps, not quite so reasonable, but at least amenable to approach, will come to a satisfactory arrangement with the objectors to the Bill as a result of which the particular needs of the Metropolitan Borough of Islington will be met in a reasonable way without having to jettison the City of London (Various Powers) Bill and the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. These General Powers Bills are essential—

Mr. A. Evans: There is a Motion on the Order Paper that it be an Instruction

to the Committee to leave out a certain Clause of the Bill. If that Clause were left out, it would not jettison the whole Bill. As far as I know, nobody in the House seeks to jettison the Bill. The objection is to the Clause.

Mr. Lipton: I hope that what my hon. Friend says is correct. I have an uneasy feeling, however, that once the House starts to jettison Clauses of a Bill, the promoters of the Bill may take a poor view of the situation and throw their hands in. I do not want that to happen. I do not want to see a situation in which these Bills, which are necessary from the viewpoint both of the City Corporation and the London County Council, are unduly impeded in their progress towards the Statute Book. I want the people of London to see the Lord Mayor's Show on a Saturday and I do not want the Bill to be held up to such an extent that the Lord Mayor's Show which is due to take place next November will have to be held on a weekday simply because there has been delay in getting the Bill on to the Statute Book as a result of the, no doubt, worthy and legitimate doubts and fears of my hon. Friends who represent Islington.
In those circumstances, I appeal to my hon. Friends who represent the three Islington constituencies, and one and a half of whom have already taken part in this debate—at least, we have had one speech and one intervention from them—not to be unduly critical. If the Bill is allowed its Second Reading, it should be possible by further discussion between the parties concerned to achieve whatever result is desired by my hon. Friends and to allow the Bill to get on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I cannot allow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) to pass unchallenged. I was amazed at some of the things he said. I do not deny that my hon. Friend is entitled to some measure of credit for his persistent efforts to try to change the day on which the Lord Mayor's Show takes place. The Lord Mayor's Show on a weekday has been a nuisance and a menace to the people of London for a very long time. To that extent, but to that extent only, I applaud the campaign which my hon. Friend has conducted.
I go further, however. I do not agree with my hon. Friend in what I regard as a quite unworthy adulation for the Lord Mayor's Show. It comes ill from anybody on these benches to try to perpetuate a piece of mediaeval pagentry which I regard as out of date and which merely serves to build up the prestige of the least democratic local authority in the country.
I remind the House that for a long time there has been a campaign for the abolition of Lord Mayor's Show day altogether as being completely out of date.

Sir Harold Webbe: Not at all.

Mr. Fletcher: Unlike the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton and echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I prefer the sentiments expressed by that well-known Conservative paper, The Times, which in an article in 1946 said:
We may regard the standing in a crowd for some considerable time to see the Lord Mayor's Show pass as an act of folly second only to that of waiting for film stars to arrive at Waterloo Station. It is idle to pretend that the emblematical cars have not lost most of their glamour.
A great deal of nonsense is talked about the Lord Mayor's Show. It is quite idle in this day and generation to suggest that it offers any attraction. It has certainly nothing like the attraction which it may have had in days gone by before there were other entertainments for schoolchildren. I have no doubt that there was a time when it served its purpose in the same way as, I have no doubt, there was a time when Lord Mayors served a much more useful purpose than they do today. I say that without any disrespect to the Lord Mayor or to the City Corporation, because the present Lord Mayor happens to be a personal friend of mine. I would not like anything I said to be taken as in any way derogatory of the Lord Mayor.
The is a democratic assembly. We shall hear presently what the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) has to say, but I would be astounded if any hon. Friend of mine on these benches were prepared to serve to perpetuate this out-of-date system, this adulation of the Lord Mayor.

I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton of the parody of the verse of a well-known hymn which schoolchildren used to sing last century. They used to sing:
All things bright and beautiful,
All teachers great and small,
All things wise and wonderful.
The Lord Mayor made them all.
That is not the outlook in which we want children of this generation to grow up.

Mr. Lipton: Perhaps this would meet my hon. Friends' wishes. For "Lord Mayor", I am willing to substitute "Chairman of the London County Council". Let him have a procession instead if my hon. Friend thinks that that would make it a more democratic affair.

Mr. Fletcher: That is a new suggestion, but it is not in the Bill. The more I read the Bill, the more I am inclined to vote against it in toto.
My interest was, naturally, to look first to the part of the Bill dealing with the Islington site and the Cattle Market. By reason of that interest in Part III, however, having had occasion to study the Bill I am more convinced than ever that the House would be mistaken to give these additional unnecessary and unreasonable powers to a City Corporation which is already swollen with its own importance and which already makes a pretention which no other municipality in the country would dream of making. My hon. Friend has referred in that context to the difference between the London Country Council and the City Corporation. If we are ever to increase the prestige of the London County Council, we shall not achieve that object by perpetuating this mediaeval dignity of the Lord Mayor, which is so particularly prominent on Lord Mayor's Day.
Perhaps the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, who, I understand, is sponsoring the Bill, will kindly explain, for my benefit and for that of some of my hon. Friends, what I regard as some of the misleading, or, certainly, not warranted, statements in the Preamble. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton has said, we are seeking to amend the Calendar Act, 1751. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is well aware, that was one of the most controversial Acts ever passed in this House.

Mr. Ede: Give us back our eleven days.

Mr. Fletcher: It took away our eleven days. It produced violent reaction in the country. As the House knows, the occasion of the Calendar Act, 1751, was to put the country on the basis of the Gregorian Calendar, as distinct from the Julian Calendar, in accordance with which we regulated our affairs for a very long time. The rest of Europe, I believe—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will know about this better than I do—adopted the Gregorian Calendar in the sixteenth century but we did not adopt it until 1751.
The odd thing is this. The effect of the Calendar Act, 1751, was to eliminate from the calendar all the days between 3rd and 14th September, 1751. As a result of that, eleven days were wiped out of the calendar. All other days, all other feasts and celebrations, retained their precise calendaric dates. Christmas Day continued to be on 25th December, Lady Day on 25th March, and so on. There was no interference with any of the feast days except in the case of the celebration of the Lord Mayor's Show, because prior to 1751 the Lord Mayor's Show was always celebrated on the day after the Feast of St. Simon and St. Jude. That is why we are changing the Calendar Act. Incidentally, may I remark in parenthesis that, like Charles Lamb, I can never understand why these two saints were lumped together and celebrated on the same day. I should have thought that was an unnecessary economy.

Sir H. Webbe: This is a most interesting disquisition and I am sure it is as instructive to other hon. Members as it is to me, but I should be obliged if the hon. Member would indicate exactly how his remarks about the Gregorian Calendar and 1751 are related to any provision in this Bill. Will he indicate where it comes in this Bill?

Mr. Fletcher: I must say that I had assumed the hon. Member was familiar with the Bill which he is sponsoring. If he will look at the Bill he will see that Clause 5 (2) starts by saying:
Section 4 of the Calendar Act, 1751, shall have effect as if
a certain substitution were made. At the very end of the Bill, in the table of

statutes, there is reference to the Calendar Act, 1751.
This is a matter of some historical importance. For some reason which I have never known, or, if I have known it, it now eludes me, in 1751 the calendar was not only changed to the Gregorian Calendar but the date of Lord Mayor's Day was changed from the day following the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude to 9th November. It may have something to do with the Michaelmas law sittings. The only reason, as I understand it, why any change in the law is required on this subject is that by statute, the Lord Mayor has to obtain Royal approval to his appointment, and he also has to take the oath formally in what used to be the Court of Exchequer but is now the Queen's Bench Division. That is something which I accept and regard as quite reasonable should continue.
What I object to is the assumption that that must be coupled with the Lord Mayor's Show, for there can be no necessary connection between the two. It does not matter to me on what date the Lord Mayor's Show is held. I should have thought, if anything, that it should be held on a day which was convenient to the judges of the Queen's Bench Division. They happen to sit every weekday but they do not sit on Saturdays. Therefore, if their convenience was the only thing that mattered, I should have thought that Saturday would be the least convenient day of the week for the Lord Mayor to take the oath. I would be happy for him to take the oath on a weekday, but I do not regard it as necessary to have all the paraphernalia of the Lord Mayor's Show in order that he shall take the oath. I see no reason why he should not go from Guildhall to the Law Courts by taxicab or by bus. I would dispense with all this out-of-date pageantry. I would let him take his oath in the Queen's Bench Division like any other citizen. That would be far more in accordance with our present democratic custom. I doubt whether it is true to say, as the Preamble to the Bill says, that it is
in accordance with ancient custom and the expectations of the citizens
that the Lord Mayor should participate in such a ceremony. I ask the House to take a modern and realistic view of this matter.
Having had my suspicions aroused about the evil effects of Part III of the Bill, I was naturally obliged to look at the other parts of the Bill and I find those equally objectionable. I think it will solve the problem of the Islington Members, and will probably save the time of the House in debating subsequent Motions, if the House takes a realistic view and does not give this Bill a Second Reading at all,

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: My hon. Friends who have already spoken have put a number of questions, and I hope that in due course they will receive replies from a representative of the promoters of the Bill. It is important that a Private Bill should be properly considered and that as far as possible questions asked by hon. Members should be answered.
So many Private Bills go through their Second Reading in this Chamber "on the nod", and perhaps that is a suitable procedure for many of them, but now and again we get a Private Bill which merits careful scrutiny and consideration by hon. Members. Generally local authority Bills have been considered very carefully and the local authorities promoting them are responsible and accountable to an electorate. That is so with every local authority in this country except for the Corporation of the City of London. Therefore, when the House grants powers to the Corporation of the City of London we should remember that we are granting powers to a body that is not subject to the ordinary democratic processes of democratic election and democratic scrutiny by an electorate that votes on the composition of the Corporation.

Sir H. Webbe: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in stating that the Corporation of the City of London is not democratically elected when, as a matter of fact, it is?

Mr. Evans: I understand the hon. Member's concern when his attention is drawn to the fact that the Corporation of the City of London is in a peculiar position in our democracy and is unlike every other local authority in its constitution, powers and method of election. In almost every way the Corporation of the City of London, for historical reasons,

is quite different from every other local authority in the country. Because the Corporation of the City of London is not, I repeat, subject to the normal democratic checks, we in this House must watch with particular care when that undemocratic body comes here and asks for powers. Therefore, it is our duty to look very carefully at the powers for which the Corporation is asking. I hope that in due course a representative of the promoters will reply to the points made by my hon. Friends and myself.
I will not go into the historical considerations which surround Lord Mayor's Day and the day upon which it is held I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has dealt with that point with great profundity and extensive historical knowledge, but I hope that very soon Lord Mayor's Day will be held on Saturdays, because time and again in corning to the House I have been held up by the procession.

Mr. Reynolds: I assume from my hon. Friend's argument that he is not against the holding of the Lord Mayor's Show, but if we are to change the date of it, would he not agree that it would be a good idea to bring the mayor-making of the City of London into line with the legislation of 1948, which changed the date of mayor-making of all boroughs from November to May? Also, if we are to have a different date, would it not be preferable that children should watch the show in May rather than in November?

Mr. Evans: Yes. Without giving much great thought to that point, I should have thought that it would be reasonable that this open-air ceremony should take place in the summer months rather than in November. I hope that my hon. Friend's suggestion will receive the attention of the promoters. They can perhaps bring in another Bill, possibly in another Parliament, and seek the consent of Parliament for the Lord Mayor's Show to be held in the summer months. I only hope that it will not be held on a day when I am coming to the House. It has held me up far too often. We know that the traffic conditions in the City of London are quite deplorable.

Mr. Lipton: I do not think that my hon. Friend should be too optimistic,


because under the present Government we have had emergencies from time to time which have necessitated the House sitting on Saturdays, so there is the possibility that my hon. Friend will still be impeded if he wants to come to the House to attend an emergency debate.

Mr. Evans: That is so, but that would be an exceptional occasion and I am prepared to take the risk.
By Clause 8 of the Bill, the Corporation for the City of London asks for power to acquire land compulsorily, whether within or without their boundaries, subject to the authorisation of the Minister of Agriculture. That is a rather far-reaching power. If it is granted, the Corporation will be able, with the consent of the Ministry of Agriculture, which seems very inclined to give its consent to the Corporation's wishes, compulsorily to acquire land in the area of any other local authority.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Not Scotland.

Mr. Evans: The Corporation would not dare to suggest that its powers of compulsory acquisition should extend to Scotland. The powers would be confined to England and Wales.

Mr. David Jones: Surely not Wales.

Mr. Evans: Yes. As I understand it, the Corporation will be empowered, if Clause 8 is passed—I do not seriously object to the Clause, but I want to put one or two points to the promoters on it—to acquire compulsorily land within the area of any other local authority in England and Wales with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. I suppose that it will be subject to the usual planning consent. Perhaps a representative of the promoters can clear up that point. If the Corporation wishes to obtain a compulsory purchase order in respect of land within another local authority, it will have to comply with the decisions of the planning authority. I hope that the promoters will confirm that.
The idea behind the Corporation in asking for this power is to provide market storage facilities on land outside the walls of the City. I suppose that the Corporation could go into Bermondsey

and acquire a piece of Bermondsey compulsorily and use it for the overflow of Billingsgate.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: There will be trouble if it does.

Mr. Evans: Likewise, the Corporation could compulsorily take a piece of land in Brixton for the overflow from the Borough Market. By this Clause the Corporation would have power to acquire land within the area of every local authority. That is a fairly extensive power, and it is subject only to the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture which presumably is the Ministry which cares for markets generally, such as meat, fish and horticultural markets—

Mr. D. Jones: Black markets?

Mr. Evans: I should think not. As this stage of their life the Government would not indulge in the black market.
I want to put one or two questions to the representative of the promoters. Is it the intention to find an overflow for Billingsgate? Presumably the Corporation wants this power to buy land so that it will have an overflow for Billingsgate, Smithfield or Borough Markets. I should like some information about what is at the back of the mind of the Corporation in taking this power of compulsory purchase beyond its boundaries. Of course Billingsgate should not be there. A fish market in the middle of the financial centre is an intrusion, and I hope that the Corporation is not thinking solely of annexes for the city markets. Taking a long view, I hope that these markets, even Smithfield Market, will be placed further away from the busy, overcrowded and congested centre of the Metropolis.
I hope that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), who I suspect will reply, will answer as best he can the questions which we have raised. There has been some levity whilst they have been raised, but we sincerely ask for information about the matters which have been mentioned. I hope that we shall receive as adequate an answer as is possible in the circumstances.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) referred to


the undemocratic character of certain features of the government of the City of London, and I should like to follow him on that point. We are asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill to confer various powers on the City of London Corporation. I should be rather reluctant that the House should confer various powers on the City of London Corporation unless the City of London shows some inclination to make its form of local government more democratic than it is at present.
Local government authorities usually work on the one-chamber principle. The City of London is unique in adopting the device of a two-chamber government. Certain of its powers are exercised by the Court of Common Council and others by the Court of Aldermen. Certain other powers, indeed, are exercised by a separate body called the Court of Common Hall. I cannot feel that that tri-cameral system of government is very suitable for conducting the affairs of a local authority.
When one looks at the Court of Aldermen, one finds, according to an account given in a reputable work of reference, that there are twenty-six aldermen. There are, in fact, twenty-six wards, and one would commonly have supposed that one alderman was elected for each ward. That is so of twenty-four of the twenty-six wards. The remaining two, I understand, share one alderman between them, and the twenty-sixth alderman is elected for a ward called Bridge Without, which I believe has a notional rather than a geographical existence. I cannot think that so complex an arrangement as that makes it easy for citizens to understand and respect their local government.
Furthermore, aldermen, once elected, are elected for life. That seems a most undemocratic procedure. What are the inhabitants of the City of London, even the inhabitants, if there are any, of the ward of Bridge Without, to do if during the lifetime of an alderman after he is elected they become dissatisfied with the way he applies himself to his duties? I think that the City of London Corporation, before asking for these various powers, should have considered a matter like this, even in regard to the Court of Common Council which does the major part of the local government work of the City of London.
It may be said that this is a democratically elected body, that there is an ordinary electoral roll of voters and that if more candidates come into the field than there are seats on the Council there would indeed be an election, and that that has, indeed, been known to happen. I am acquainted with this matter because some years ago I lived in the City of London in a ward which, if I remember rightly, was called St. Andrews by the Wardrobe. While I was living there the time for the election of the Court of Common Council came round, and fourteen common councillors of that ward who had been common councillors for some time all stood for re-election, to the alarm—

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will my hon. Friend also make the point—I have no doubt that he is aware of it—that there are still represented on the Court of Common Council persons who purport to be elected representatives of the ward of St. Giles, Cripplegate, although there has been nobody living in that ward and no ratepayers paying rates in that ward since 1940, and that this House recently approved an Order in Council allowing persons elected many years ago to remain in office another five years representing nobody?

Mr. Stewart: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I wish I had known about that when I was living there I might have got myself elected.
As I was saying, fourteen councillors for the ward in which I was living all stood for the election. A fifteenth person—I do not wish to make any personal point about him, and so I will simply refer to him as Mr. Smith, though that was not his name—also stood. This caused the very greatest concern because it made it necessary to hold an election in the ward. Therefore, the fourteen sitting councillors issued an election address. In it they made no statement of policy. It simply stated that they had been councillors for a long time and that, in effect, they considered that was a good reason why they should go on being councillors. Mr. Smith issued a counter-election address pointing out that a good many years previously, before the war, he had been a councillor, and he considered that was a good reason why he should become a councillor again. It was with that minimum of


information that I and my fellow electors in the ward were invited to make a choice of fourteen persons out of the fifteen who were soliciting our suffrages.
It was desirable that in order to take part in the election of the council one should attend a wardmote and cast one's vote by hand in no secret ballot. Duties at the House prevented me from attending the wardmote, but I had a reliable report from a friend who attended it. My friend arrived a few minutes after the wardmote had begun. A magnificiently dressed beadle at the entrance to the hall said briskly, "They are voting for Mr. So-and-So. Put up your hand." My friend felt that this was not quite the way in which an election should be conducted, and he waited for all the names to be called in order to cast a more discriminating vote. At the end of the voting by show of hands it appeared that the fourteen sitting councillors had all been re-elected and that Mr. Smith was unsuccessful, whereupon the supporters of Mr. Smith demanded that a poll should be held.
The official presiding over the proceedings—I am not quite sure of his name—was very much taken aback, and said "I never thought you would do that." However, as Mr. Smith and his supporters had been so inconsiderate as to do it, a poll had to be held. I must confess that, although there appeared to be no vital difference of policy among the fifteen persons, I thought I would strike a blow for democracy if I voted for Mr. Smith in order to express the view that the mere fact that one is on the council is not a sufficient reason for remaining on it. However, very few of my fellow citizens in the ward were of that opinion, and the fourteen sitting councillors were re-elected. Nobody in the ward had at any time been informed as to what their policy or the policy of their opponents was.
I will not discuss the method of selection of the Lord Mayor, because that would take very much longer, and I am hoping to hear it explained and justified by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe).
Since we have here a local authority whose system of local government is almost unbelievably cumbrous, which

uses the device of the election of people to local government for life and open voting by show of hands and apparently arouses so little interest among the electors that it is extremely difficult to get an election going at all, and even when there is an election nobody thinks it necessary to tell the electors what their policies are, I think the City of London Corporation should have done something to put some of those things right before asking us to confer various powers upon it.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: The Bill seems to increase the powers of a so-called local authority which already has too many powers and ought to be restricted. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have never been very much impressed by the so-called pageantry of either the Lord Mayor's Show or the City Corporation. What I am sure about is that it is an anachronism in London government which ought to have been removed many years ago. Therefore, I am not very keen on extending the Corporation's powers. It seems to me that the Bill extends its powers in a way which has already been refused to many local authorities.
I refer particularly to Clause 8, which provides the Corporation with compulsory powers to purchase land outside the City. I can understand it being "outside the City". It would be rather difficult to buy any land in the City, if there were any vacant, for it would be at an enormous price. However, the Corporation is asking to be given powers to purchase land outside the City, and presumably that means anywhere in London or around London.
I noticed a moment or two ago that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was present. He has now disappeared. Every time we point out to the Ministry and the Government that one of the troubles about house-building in London is that the borough councils and the county councils have no land on which to build and we suggest that they might be given powers to take land outside London, every Tory in the House opposes it, including the Tories in London and Westminster and including the whole of the Government.
It seems to me that if it is wrong that the local housing authorities, dealing with a service to the people which I think is infinitely more important than the storage of empty cabbage boxes, cannot have the powers to acquire the land necessary to deal with the 50-odd thousand very urgent cases of housing in London, and the 150-odd thousand others on the list, there must be a very poor case for giving powers to the City Corporation in this way, when it is an authority which we think already has too many extra powers, because it represents the so-called wealthy and ancient City of London.
I am suspicious, maybe because I am a Cockney, but let us suppose that the City Council acquired the powers to buy this land for a market purpose. Is the City Corporation then to become, if not legally, the marketing authority for London? At the moment, I think that there is a case for a properly thought out and organised system of markets, controlled not by the City Corporation, but by the existing local government organisations in London. The sooner that comes, the sooner we shall get some sense and organisation into our markets, and, I believe, very much cheaper provision of the food and other things which London gets through its markets, than if we go on in the present way.
The history of the City of London has been read by some of us, and we know how it sought to increase its powers and how it has managed somehow to do it when other authorities were losing their powers. It managed to keep its privileges and the rest of the geegaws which it likes so much. This House should think very carefully before deciding to give this authority the extra powers for which it is asking for a purpose which ought to be dealt with, and which previous commissions of inquiry have said should be dealt with, in a different way; namely, by the reorganisation of the London market facilities on sites on the outskirts, as is the practice on the Continent and also in some parts of this country. This would provide us with better, more efficient and cheaper services, and would get: rid of the horrible mixture of traffic congestion which takes place in the Strand each morning when the market is open.
It seems to me that the House might be running a serious risk in passing this Bill. I hope that somebody representing

the City Corporation will reply to this debate and will tell us why we should give these extra powers to the City Corporation in order to extend these market facilities in the way provided in this Bill. I hope the House will not agree to do so.
For the benefit of the Minister, who is not here now, perhaps I may repeat that I am particularly interested in the suggestion that the City Corporation shall be given extra powers compulsorily to buy land outside its own boundaries, even if only, as in this case, for the purpose of providing storage facilities for market apparatus. I hope that the House will note that this has been asked for, and that the next time we have a debate on London housing—which I hope will be more effective, successful and of longer duration than the one we had recently, and will answer the suggestions which we have thrown up time after time—we shall hear that the pukka democratic authorities in London—the borough councils and the L.C.C.—will be given power to take land outside their own boundaries by compulsory purchase order, subject, of course, to all the conditions which are attached to such an order.
If they had those powers, they might be able to cure in our lifetime some of the horrible housing conditions which so affect the people of London. I hope that we shall be told something more about this Clause before we pass this Bill on Second Reading.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: We have heard five speeches in this debate so far but not a single word in favour of this Bill. I consider it to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory Bill; indeed, a hotch-potch of a Bill, with so many different Clauses which do not appear to be particularly related.
I want to add a word to what some of my hon. Friends have said in relation to the City of London Corporation, which is a thoroughly undemocratic body. I have long thought that it was ripe for a take-over bid by the L.C.C. It would be much more satisfactory for London if the City of London Corporation were incorporated into the L.C.C., because it is most confusing to our overseas friends when they come to this country and they ask about the Lord Mayor and his position in London, and try to find out what


is the status of the authority in County Hall just across the river. It is also most embarrassing to us, particularly to those of us who are democrats, to have to try to explain just what is this peculiar set-up for the City of London Corporation.
It is most unsatisfactory that we are being asked to give further powers to this Corporation, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has just said, to give these powers of acquiring land far outside its own boundaries. How does this Bill arise? At least one section of it is included because the Bill which was promoted by the London County Council—
… to prohibit the storage in that area"—
that is, the Covent Garden area—
of any combustible material, including both full and empty fruit, vegetable and flower containers, unless the buildings in which they were stored—many of them old and serious fire risks—were first brought up to an adequate standard of fire protection,
was rejected, because the Select Committee in another place rejected those proposals.
I should like to know why these proposals were rejected. Why is it that, apparently, buildings exist in Covent Garden many of which, to quote from the statement circulated by the L.C.C. about this Bill, are—
old and serious fire risks
Are we helping by passing this Bill to keep in existence old buildings which should be torn down or put into such a condition that they are no longer serious fire risks? I am very doubtful whether the Bill will help us at all to deal with what is a serious problem in Covent Garden, and I echo the views of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. It is most unsatisfactory to have the business of market control in the hands of the City of London Corporation, which is necessarily a very limited body.
We want the markets of London to be organised in such a way that they serve the consumers of the Greater London area as efficiently and effectively as possible. This House should consider a Bill which would give power to organise the markets of London in a much more satisfactory way than they are organised today. Before those proposals were brought before the House, I would

suggest it would be very helpful indeed if they could be referred to a committee representing the consumers as well as the producers of horticultural produce. From that committee, we might have the benefit of some expert advice and information before we consider such an important question.
I want to ask the hon. Member who is acting for the promoters of the Bill what is the meaning of Clause 16. We have here a Clause which is rather difficult to understand on first reading, and which relates to the ecclesiastical parish of St. Botolph Without Aldgate. We are told:
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that any tithe rate made and levied by the Corporation as successors to the former tithe owner or by the common council as successors to the said churchwardens is recoverable by the Corporation for the common council … in the same manner as the general rate of the city is recoverable by the common council and in no other manner.
To whom does that relate and how are those powers now operated? Do we understand that no distress will be caused to certain individuals affected by the Clause, if the Bill is passed?
Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill and the far-reaching powers which are to be given to the City of London Corporation, I intend to vote against the Second Reading.

8.10 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) complained that a Bill entitled
City of London (Various Powers)
should deal with various powers and not be, as he put it, a consistent whole. I am sure that the House will sympathise with me in my very difficult task of disentangling from a debate of an hour or more, a debate which has ranged very widely and has brought in many considerations, the points to which hon. Members would seriously wish me to reply. I say at once that I do not propose, and I am sure that no one would wish me to do so, to discuss the broad general question of the set-up of local government in the Corporation of London.
The Corporation has been called a great many things in the course of the debate. I noted a few of them—cumbrous, undemocratic, tri-cameral, the


worst epithet I have heard applied for a long time, and venturesome, which I am sure will rejoice some of my friends in the City who have never before been accused of being unduly venturesome.
It is not part of my job tonight to discuss the constitution of the City of London, and I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking that, as a result of the debate and the many words of wisdom which have fallen from so many people, the whole constitution of the Corporation of the City of London is likely to be changed, at any rate until there has been further opportunity for the House to consider it.
I will now deal with some of the points which I think are relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I speak with great diffidence, but I am an elector in the City of London and I have listened with great interest to accounts of how I am supposed to be represented. If the hon. Gentleman is now speaking on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, who are asking for greater powers, might it not be worth while to say a word in defence of the constitution, which has been described in the course of the debate?

Sir H. Webbe: If the hon. Member wishes me to say a word in its defence, I will say that I think that it is doing very nicely, thank you.
I propose to refer to the granting of certain additional powers which has been the subject of several speeches. The most extraordinary alarms have been sounded about the granting, under Clause 8, of certain powers to the City Corporation to acquire land. No speaker has stressed that those are powers to acquire land for a very limited purpose and that those powers can be operated only subject to the approval of the Minister and the planning authority.
One hon. Member asked whether the planning authority would have anything to do with it. Of course, the City Corporation is most law-abiding and would not seek to override, if it could, any powers of the London County Council, the planning authority. It may be a disappointment to some hon. Members to know that the powers are being sought in the closest possible agreement with the London County Council, which is seeking similar powers for itself. The purpose

of those powers is as described in the Bill, and not as some hon. Members have guessed. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the City Corporation to co-operate with other bodies and with the Ministry in attempting, as far as it can, to solve some of the problems of the markets in London.
I have been asked specific questions about whether there is any intention to provide an annexe or overflow for Billingsgate or the Borough Market or Smithfield. So far as I know, there is none. I have never heard any suggestion to that effect. However, as the Runciman Committee pointed out, the traffic congestion in Spitalfields is even greater than that at Covent Garden and it may well be that the proper thing to do will be to obtain additional storage space in order to reduce the congestion at Spitalfields, just as in the other proposals of the Bill it is intended to deal with that at Covent Garden.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose—

Sir H. Webbe: I would rather not give way. I want to try to keep my head clear in spite of the efforts of so many to fog the whole position.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) raised two matters. He referred to Clause 18, under which the Corporation takes powers to invest up to half its superannuation funds in equities rather than in strictly trustee stocks. In general principle, as he has pointed out, that is an entirely acceptable thing to do, and the precedents of the Manchester City Corporation and the London County Council can well be followed.
The hon. Gentleman made great play with the question of 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. There is nothing serious to be read into that. It is merely that, being venturesome, the City Corporation felt that it should have a little more freedom to invest its superannuation funds in a wide range of securities, now that the ordinary trustee list is so restricted.
There is nothing new or sinister in this. I am not in the least alarmed by all that was said about Socialism and nationalisation creeping in by the back door. If all the superannuation funds of all the local authorities were entirely invested in equities, there would be very little effect at all. It is purely a fear for which there


is no ground and I assure the hon. Member for Islington, North that the Conservative City of London would not be following the Socialist London County Council and the Socialist City of Manchester Corporation if it thought that it was in any way betraying its own personal belief in private enterprise.
The hon. Member also referred to Clause 17 and to the deer enclosure. He has misrepresented the Clause and has not appreciated what is happening. He was perfectly right to say that the Corporation is under an obligation to maintain a herd of deer, in the Elizabethan words, as "an ornament to the park and for the enjoyment of the public". There are many people who like seeing deer. There are some people who do not like having deer too near to them. I assure the House that that feeling is mutual. The deer do not like the public. It is precisely because they do not like the public that the deer are being provided with an enclosure to which the public will not have access and to which the deer can retreat when they wish to do so to have a little peace and quiet. They will not be herded in or out. It will be a place to which they can retreat where the public cannot follow. If the experience of other game reserves throughout the world is followed, it may be that in a year or two there will be complaints from hon. Members that the deer do not show themselves enough.
The area to which the deer go must be outside the boundaries of the forest because it would not be proper for the City to endeavour to keep the public out of any part of the forest itself. Fortunately, the generosity of a great friend of Epping Forest, whose name I will not mention but which I think everyone knows, has made available a suitable plot of land adjoining the forest. There is nothing to complain about in this unless it be perhaps that the deer have not the sense to be as enthusiastic about the hon. Member as he seems to be about them.
Finally, Lord Mayor's Day. I would not for a moment begrudge the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) his little song of thanksgiving. He has worked very hard. I do not want to comment too much on this Clause because—and I make no bones about it—I read it with a very heavy heart. I listened with amazement to the hon. Member for

Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). I hope that the next time he stands for Parliament in Islington he will make that speech there. He will be out on his neck. The suggestion that no one enjoys the Lord Mayor's Show is nonsense. Ask the children and the thousands of people who come to look at it.
The suggestion is that the Lord Mayor's Day is out of date. Of course it is. That is what makes it attractive. Where the hon. Member slipped in a way that I would not expect of him was that he did not read the Bill. The Bill says nothing about the Lord Mayor's Show. All this talk about the Gregorian Calendar and what happened in 1751, when I was not there and I am sure the hon. Member was not, has not the slightest relevance to the Lord Mayor's Show. The Clause alters the date on which the Lord Mayor is to take the oath and to take office. The Show is a personal arrangement made by the Lord Mayor in accordance with tradition. It has no legal validity, no legal sanction, and represents no legal obligation.
In spite of the "misery talk" about it by the hon. Member for Islington, East, I predict that there will be a Lord Mayor's Show this year, next year, and for a great many years after the hon. Member has ceased to be the Member for Islington, East. The Lord Mayor's Show is not in the Bill and the stuff that the hon. Member for Islington, East talked is quite irrelevant.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The whole justification for the Bill is the statement in the Preamble that the streets in and about the City have been congested by the ceremonies taking place on Lord Mayor's Day. If it were not for the Show there would be no point in changing Lord Mayor's Day.

Sir H. Webbe: That is in the Preamble, but the Bill makes no provision in regard to the Lord Mayor's Show. It makes provision for the Lord Mayor's swearing-in and taking office. I submit that there is nothing in the Clause to which anyone could take exception. If, as a result, it means that the Lord Mayor's Show, to which the hon. Member for Islington, East takes such strong objection, is held on Saturday, the hon. Member for Brixton will be delighted.
I think I have covered all the points that have been made.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the point raised about Clause 16?

Sir H. Webbe: The explanation is simple. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Clause carefully he will see that the collection of these tithes, which expire in 1970, another ten years' time, is invested in the Corporation. The purpose of the Clause is merely to see that the same procedure will be applied in collecting these tithes as in collecting the ordinary rates of the City of London. That is obviously desirable. The Clause is part of Part IV, which deals with the procedure for the collection of rates. The object is simply to bring the detailed rating procedure in the City of London into line with the rest of the country so that it will be easier when the Government introduce a consolidation Measure, which I believe is on the stocks, as no special provision will need to be made for the City of London. It merely brings in a uniformity of procedure which everyone can understand.
Having dealt, so far as I am able, with the many points made, I hope that the House will now be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Having listened to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) I can only say that if the Bill does receive a Second Reading it will probably be by the votes of those who have not been present during the debate. I heard nothing in the hon. Gentleman's speech in reply to some of the points made by my hon. Friends.
The trouble about the City of London is that it was exempted from the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, and has never been reformed in the whole of its history to bring it into line with modern practice in local government. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman should have made the one emphatic statement in his speech that, as far as he was concerned, it never would be reformed.
Having heard from my hon. Friends the way in which these elections are conducted, I am certain that there is no case now for exempting the City Corporation from the various reforms that have been carried out generally with regard to

municipal administration. The curious thing is that in 1935, and for some years thereafter, the City of London was one of the places in which reform was very popular for everybody but itself. In the history of the nineteenth century a good many great causes of freedom were defended and exemplified by the City of London in defiance of any reform situation that it occupied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) raised the question of Epping Forest. If there is one thing that stands to the credit of the City Corporation it is the gallant way in which, during the nineteenth century, it fought the nineteen lords of the manor of Epping Forest to secure that that great space should remain open for ever. Those of us who live in the suburbs of London know that in similar actions in the seventies and eighties, with regard to Burham Beeches, Coulsdon Common and other open spaces, the Corporation maintained access to those open spaces for the teeming population of the City of London. For that at least it deserves the gratitude of the present generation.
With regard to the rest of what the. hon. Member said, we are asked to believe that because the City of London wants something the House ought not to deny it. I believe that even in these days the City of London ought to be prepared to justify, more than the hon. Member's speech has justified, the things for which it requires powers from this House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I should like to correct the impression given by my right hon. Friend, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, that all hon. Members on this side of the House think that the Bill should be opposed.

Mr. Ede: I never said that.

Mr. A. Evans: On a point of order. Would it be in order for the Minister to intervene in connection with Clause 8, with which he is involved?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is a question for the Minister.

Mr. E. Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)


has drawn attention to a particular part of the House from which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has spoken. I had always understood that from the point of view of the Chair all Members of the House are equal and that all Members are entitled to speak from any part of the House in which they choose to sit. I ask you, as a matter of some importance to all hon. Members, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to draw attention to the particular place from which some other hon. Member happens to have spoken.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I see nothing out of order in that.

Mr. Mellish: I merely wanted to point out that some hon. Members who have not spoken in the debate would regard it as a tragedy if the Bill did not get a Second Reading, because there are certain things in the Bill which we are not allowed to discuss but which many trade unionists regard as an essential feature. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Many hundreds. If the Bill does not receive a Second Reading many people who regard their livelihoods as depending upon some of the Bill's provisions will regard it as a tragedy.
I should not like any of my hon. Friends blindly to go into the Division Lobby to vote against the Second Reading merely because of their distaste for the City of London and all it stands for. I put it to them that before they come to any judgment in the matter they should at least wait until we have heard the arguments which will be adduced later in regard to a specific Clause.

Mr. Reynolds: On Clause 8, is my hon. Friend telling us that the workers in Covent Garden Market—to whom I presume he referred—would like the House to pass a Bill which would enable the City Corporation to carry out its announced intention of permanently splitting the functions of Covent Garden and allocating them to two quite distinct and separate sites? Do the workers want us to support that argument?

Mr. Mellish: I should like to develop that point, because I know the views of the Covent Garden workers, but it is not relevant to Clause 8. I would argue it on Clause 9, but that would be out of

order now. I appeal to those of my hon. Friends who have some doubts about the matter to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill on behalf of trade unionists whose livelihood is Covent Garden.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) asked me a specific question, but it would be far better for the Bill to be given a Second Reading before I reply, for I could then develop the arguments which I wish to employ in relation to Clause 9. My hon. Friend dealt with the specific points arising on Clause 8, and I have no reason to dissent from what he said. My argument is connected with Clause 9, which Mr. Speaker asked us to leave until after the Division.

Mr. Ede: I should like to state that I make no claim to speak for anyone else, no matter where I sit in the House.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I want to point out something which operates in respect of the City of London which I do not believe operates in any other local authority—at least in London. The City Corporation is asking the House of Commons to give it additional powers. It is obviously entitled to do so, but I would draw attention to the fact that about two years ago I put down a Question regarding the administration of the City Corporation and that Question was refused upon the ground that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as he then was, had no power to interfere in the administration of the City Corporation.
In cases involving Metropolitan borough councils successive Ministers have accepted the responsibility for answering Questions in the House, and I submit that it is setting a very dangerous precedent to say that we are not entitled to ask Questions with regard to the administration of the City of London. It would be extremely foolish of us to give excessive additional powers to a local authority whom we have no power to criticise. I make that point in the hope that if the Bill is given a Second Reading the City Corporation will have some regard to the anachronisms to which attention has been drawn.

Question put:—

Bill accordingly read a second time and committed.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 9.
Clause 9 deals with the proposal of the Corporation to use part of the site of the Cattle Market at Islington for the storage of empty boxes and boxes of produce in connection with the trade at Covent Garden Market. I cannot do better than refer to paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Preamble to the Bill, because they

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 38.

Division No. 158.]
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimond, J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, Richard


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Bell Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pott, H. P.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Beswick, Frank
Holt, A. F.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hope, Lord John
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bingham, R. M
Hornby, R. P.
Ramsden, J. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Mist M. P.
Renton, D. L. M.


Blackburn, F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Rippon, A. G. F.


Body, R. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hutchison Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Braine, B. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Stoddart-Scott, Col- Sir Malcolm


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Janner, B.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Bryan, P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Teeling, W.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Temple, John M.


Champion A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Coldrick, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Wade, D. W.


Corfield, F. V
Kirk, P. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Wall, Patrick


Cronin, J. D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Deedes, W. F.
Lipton, Marcus
Webbe, Sir H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Longden, Gilbert
Williams, Rev. (Llwelyn (Ab'tillery)


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'caste upon Tyne, N.)
MacColl, J. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, R. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Mellish, R. J.



Glover, D.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, J. B.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Mrs. Corbet and


Gower, H. R.
Moyle, A.
Mr. Dudley Williams.




NOES


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Reynolds, G. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pnos. S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, G. M.
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Symonds, J. B.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Richard


Gibson, C. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Rt. Hn, Glenvll (Colne Valley)
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Stonehonse


Hannan, W.
Price, Philips, (Gloucestershire, W.)

set out quite clearly the idea behind Clause 9. Paragraph (4) says:
For the purpose of assisting in the relief of congestion of traffic and the reduction of fire risk"—

I emphasise those words—
in and in the vicinity of the markets at Covent Garden and Spitalfields in the administrative county of London and of creating conditions in which such markets may be re-planned and organised it is necessary that facilities should be provided for the storage of horticultural produce and containers.
Then paragraph (5) says:
It is accordingly expedient that further powers with respect to the provision of such


facilities as aforesaid the borrowing of money and the acquisition of land therefor should be conferred upon the Corporation and that they should be authorised to use for such purposes part of the site of their Metropolitan Cattle Market at Islington.

From that paragraph it appears that the Corporation bases its case for Clause 9 upon the need to deal with the problem of Covent Garden because of traffic congestion and fire risk there. The Corporation points to those problems and says, "If we can use part of the site of the Cattle Market at Islington, we can make a contribution to solving the problem of Covent Garden Market."

Everybody would agree that there are very serious problems at Covent Garden Market, and especially the problem of traffic congestion. Anybody who has been to Covent Garden will know that during the marketing hours the congestion is almost indescribable. Not only are the roads packed with lorries and vans but even the pavements are taken up with the barrows which porters use for shifting produce from point to point. Unquestionably there is very considerable traffic congestion in and around Covent Garden, from midnight.

The congestion begins at midnight when traders are beginning to approach the market in order to get some chance of being served within a reasonable time. [Interruption.] An hon. Member shakes his head and says, "Not midnight". If it does not start at midnight, it starts very soon after and by three or four in the morning there is a buildup of traffic which goes on until seven, eight or even later. There is a very serious traffic congestion at Covent Garden and everyone agrees that we should take what action is possible to deal with it. The problem of traffic congestion has a distinct bearing on the second problem—that of fire risk—for the congestion of traffic at any time when a fire occurs prevents fire appliances getting to the fire quickly.

There is an alarming degree of fire risk at Covent Garden apart from traffic congestion. The place is packed to capacity with tens of thousands of empty containers and containers filled with produce. Although there are a few modern buildings, for the most part they are old without fire precautions facilities and without adequate space to allow of the free movement of firemen.

We agree, even those of us who are opposed to Clause 9, that there is a very serious fire risk at Covent Garden and anything which can be done to reduce it should be done. There have been some very serious fires there, with grave consequences. In December, 1949, there was a terrible fire in Covent Garden in the basement of the flower market near the Opera House. It burned for two days and 580 firemen were needed to deal with it. One of those firemen lost his life and thirty-eight other firemen were overcome by fumes and smoke. It was found that the basement was packed tight from floor to ceiling with empty-boxes and it was quite impossible for the firemen to get to the seat of the fire. The smoke was dense and overwhelming and there was a complete absence of ventilation to take the smoke away There were no proper fire breaks between the boxes, nor adequate gangways to allow the movement of personnel to deal with the fire. Before they could approach the fire, the firemen had to be equipped with oxygen and breathing apparatus.

The lesson of that fire was that the packing of combustible materials in basements requires very careful fire precautions. The same lesson was learned from a more serious fire at Covent Garden in May, 1954. It was then impossible to reach the seat of the fire because of smoke and the tight packing of boxes and containers. A building collapsed and three firemen lost their lives. There was a complete lack of fire-fighting equipment and those in charge of the premises had failed to provide necessary protection and precautions. London County Council is not in a position to oblige traders to provide fire precautions. It can only impose the provisions of the London Building Acts when a new building is erected or more than 50 per cent. of a building is reconstructed. Only then can the county council enforce adequate precautions.

There was another fire, which rammed home this lesson, at Smithfield Market. The lesson for the fire authority was the same. The fire occurred in the poultry market of Smithfield, which was the property of the City Corporation. It was a bad fire in which two firemen lost their lives. Again it was found that the authority responsible, the City Corporation, had failed to provide


adequate fire protection at that poultry market. One would have thought that the City Corporation would have been more alive to its duty in that respect than it was. One would have thought that before the Corporation intervened in a problem beyond its borders in respect of fire risks, it would have made its own stable clean, and dealt with exactly a parallel case at the poultry market at Smithfield and provided adequate fire precaution and prevention arrangements there.

It is necessary to speak frankly about the matter because firemen's lives are at unnecessary risk when traders fail to install adequate fire protection provisions. It is therefore necessary to talk plainly. When there are inadequate fire precautions and firemen lose their lives, we must be frank in our speech.

There are serious problems in Covent Garden which we must try to solve. The question tonight is, "Will the powers which the Corporation of the City of London seeks in Clause 9 enable the City to make a contribution towards the problem of dealing with the fire risk and the congestion of traffic at Covent Garden?" The Minister thinks that they will and that if Clause 9 is given to the Corporation and acted upon, it will be possible to some extent to deal with the Covent Garden problem. We take the contrary view. We do not agree with the Minister. We know that he is responsible to some extent and that he cannot be happy while Covent Garden remains unmodernised and while this problem exists. It is one of his responsibilities to deal with the problem, and he should deal with it thoroughly. We suggest that he will not deal with it merely by allowing the Corporation to have Clause 9.

In my view, the approval of Clause 9 and its implementation will postpone the solution of these vital problems in Covent Garden Market. The Minister is evading these serious problems and is taking a timid, small step which will postpone their solution. If the Clause is passed and the Corporation implements it as far as it can, that in itself will further complicate the problems of Covent Garden. It will make it more difficult for the Minister eventually to find a permanent solution. Further, I shall seek to prove—at least. I shall suggest

to the House—that the idea of using the Cattle Market at Islington as a temporary annexe to Covent Garden will be a waste of money and time. It will delay matters and allow time to slip by whilst the central problems facing us at Covent Garden are not being dealt with.

I shall also seek to prove that, if Clause 9 is granted to the City Corporation and it begins to construct buildings at the site of the Caledonian Market, that action will obstruct the proper planning of a part of London which is in a terrible state of muddle and needs replanning and redevelopment. If the site of the Cattle Market at Islington becomes an annexe to Covent Garden, the movement of traffic in the vital area between the centre and a five-mile radius will not be diminished, but possibly increased.

The powers which Clause 9 would give to the Corporation are unnecessary, because this matter is already in the hands of the appropriate authority. The City Corporation has no locus. It has sought to intervene for its private purposes, because it wanted to exploit this Cattle Market. Clause 9 is unnecessary, because the Bill which follows this, namely, the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, gives powers to the London County Council which will enable it to solve the problems at Covent Garden on a permanent basis and not on a temporary basis, as suggested in Clause 9. The London County Council (General Powers) Bill is linked with this, and when that Bill becomes law the London County Council will have the necessary powers, with the support and approval of the Minister, to enforce a permanent solution of the problems at Covent Garden. The attempt of the City Corporation in Clause 9 will not be permanent and adequate.

A solution of the problems at Covent Garden must obviously substantially and permanently reduce the volume of goods and traffic doing into and out of Covent Garden and around it. That must be the objective of any attempt at the solution of Covent Garden's problems. Any solution which does not achieve that objective is not a solution, and will be unsatisfactory.

Further, any proper solution must be acceptable to the traders. It is no good


the Minister or any local authority trying to impose a solution at Covent Garden which the traders refuse to accept and operate. They are practical businessmen and they will rightly go about their business in their own way. They will avoid and circumvent any scheme which they do not accept. Any proper solution to Covent Garden's problems must reduce the traffic in the area and must also be acceptable to the traders, for without their co-operation it cannot work.

The proposal in Clause 9 is not permanent. As hon. Members will see from the terms of the Clause, it is limited in duration to five years. Despite any attempts behind the scenes—and there has been a lot of movement behind the scenes in the history of this Bill and of the London County Council Bill—we may be certain that the limitation to five years will be insisted upon.

The proposed solution of the Covent Garden problem in Clause 9 is not, therefore, a permanent one. It cannot last longer than five years and it may be even shorter. Nobody suggests that this is a permanent solution. The City Corporation does not suggest that it is. The London County Council does not in any sense say that it is permanent.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: The London County Council says that it is not a permanent solution.

Mr. Evans: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who puts it positively. The London County Council says definitely that this proposal by the City Corporation in Clause 9 is not a permanent solution. The Minister knows this. Far from its being permanent, it is likely to delay the coming into operation of a permanent solution.
The proposals in Clause 9 are not acceptable to the traders. One of the vital tests of any proffered solution is that the traders must be ready to accept it and to work it. The traders, however—they are businessmen—have turned this down and say, quite rightly, that they will have nothing to do with any scheme that is on a temporary basis. These hard-headed businessmen, who have built up a great centre of horticultural trade at Covent Garden, have rejected the solution embodied in Clause 9 and will not work it. They want a permanent solution.
I suggest that if Clause 9 becomes law and the City Corporation gets this power, we will have a period of complete stagnation. We would be holding up the permanent solution by allowing the Corporation to have the Clause. When the Bill finally goes through and the Corporation has Clause 9 and the powers therein, the Minister will say, "That is that. That is out of the way. Now, we are on the way to a solution." He will turn his attention to other problems in his Department. He will not pursue with determination the search for a permanent site or solution. The very introduction of a temporary solution to a matter which has to be dealt with postpones one's efforts to find a permanent solution. The Minister is evading the problems in Covent Garden and has jumped at the offer by the City Corporation as a possible, immediate amelioration of his problem. He knows—everybody knows—that it is not a permanent solution. If it goes through, it will hinder the Ministry of Agriculture in their attempts to find a permanent site.
What will the London County Council do if this Clause goes through? Will the fact that the Corporation has power to act, to erect sheds and to take things from Covent Garden stimulate the London County Council to hunt for a permanent solution? It is most unlikely. We are all aware of the inertia in most men, and that if someone says, "It is all right; we have partly solved this problem", people say at once, "I need not trouble so much about finding a proper solution." Inevitably the London County Council will tend to slacken in its efforts to find a permanent site if the City Corporation is given powers to apply some temporary solution.
The City Corporation, of course, will not trouble very much about finding a permanent solution once it has got Clause 9. It will be busy at the cattle market putting up buildings, and, no doubt, making a very good show of it, for it is a powerful authority and has immense resources. It will certainly not get into a "flap" about the matter and say, "We must not be content with this temporary arrangement." It is obvious that as soon as the City Corporation gets the powers embodied in Clause 9, it will put aside any preoccupation it ever had with attempting to find a permanent solution to the Covent Garden problem.


We may be sure that if Clause 9 stands and the cattle market is used as a temporary annex the permanent solution of the fire and traffic problems will be pushed further away. To use the cattle market at Islington temporarily will not solve the Covent Garden problem but will tend to delay its solution.
This is a complicated matter. There are two Bills. Two authorities and the Covent Garden Traders Association are all involved. There are cross-petitions between the two local authorities. There are petitions in another place from the market traders, and now there is another petition to a Committee of this House. There has been a lot of consultation behind the scenes, as the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) is aware.
We know that Covent Garden is a fascinating place, and we should be sorry to lose it. It has character and there are some odd people there who are interesting to meet. It is a part of old London and it has a great fascination for Londoners. It has grown up over generations. It is the result of the effort of hundreds of thousands of people, and the consequence of that individual effort is the present complete muddle. We cannot move. A person cannot get his goods out, the traffic is congested and the danger of fire is very great. All this is the result of unplanned private initiative, each person, quite rightly, intent upon his own purpose.
Covent Garden has great merit and fascination. It is the centre of a great business network for consumers throughout the country, but it is frightfully complicated and has brought grave social problems which the Minister must solve. If something permanent is not done, traffic will come to a standstill and firemen will run unnecessary risks. The time comes in such a growth when individual initiative is not enough. We cannot leave the matter to individual ambition and purpose. It is necessary to plan and for order to be imposed upon the muddle of individual effort.
In that complicated situation, if Clause 9 is passed I think that it will add to the complications. A secondary argument will arise as to whether the cattle market annexe at Islington should be permanent or temporary. Attempts will be made to

persuade the London County Council to agree to that annexe being used for bulk produce. If Clause 9 is accepted, the whole problem of Covent Garden will be further complicated. I suggest that it would be a mistake to add to that complicated problem.
The duty of the Minister is plain: he must find a permanent solution. I believe that he has already appointed some of his officers to act jointly with officers of the London County Council in an intensive search for a permanent site for the annexe for the overflow from Covent Garden. I understand that that intensive search has been set afoot. Presumably it is backed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, although generally in this matter it has not been forthcoming. This is surprising, because basically the question whether the cattle market should be used or not is a planning matter. I cannot believe that the joint effort of the Ministry and the L.C.C. will not find within a reasonable time a site for a permanent annexe to Covent Garden which traders would accept and which would be a permanent solution to the problems which must be solved.
If the temporary effort by the City Corporation to find a measure of solution to the problem of Covent Garden is made, it will necessitate expenditure which will be largely wasted. Although the City Corporation may have more money than it should by right possess, and although its rateable income must be exceedingly high, that is no reason why it should waste money. Wasting money means wasting effort and labour. There will be a considerable waste of time and money if the Corporation goes ahead with its plans outlined in Clause 9 in respect of Islington Cattle Market, because in a year's time the permanent site may be found.
Would any businessman countenance the laying down of his capital reserves on something which he knew would last only a short time and when he knew that if he waited that short time he would be able to apply his resources to something permanent? I cannot imagine a businessman entertaining any such proposal as that of the City Corporation. Perhaps the Minister does not mind if the Corporation spends its money, but we ought to be aware that there is


the overriding consideration that a waste of effort inflicts wastage on the whole country; and, although the loss may be that of the City Corporation, it is nevertheless something to be deplored and avoided if possible.
The buildings which are to be put up will be costly. I know that it has been said, quite plausibly, that they can be put up quickly and also taken down quickly when the permanent site is found. That is what we have been told, but it really is not a sensible suggestion to make to anyone who knows how these things go on. If the City Corporation provides the annexe at Islington it will not be content with Dutch barns. There will have to be an office for the staff. There will have to be permanent or semi-permanent buildings. It is certain that a considerable amount of money will be laid out on the cattle market, and it will all be unnecessary as soon as the permanent site is found. I understand that it is the intention of the London County Council to find the permanent site as quickly as possible. Therefore, on the face of it, it is a foolish thing to do.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Was it not only very recently that the London County Council seriously set about looking for the permanent site and that it has since said that it is very hopeful of finding one in the near future? If it succeeds, will not that render the Bill quite unnecessary?

Mr. Evans: Yes, what my hon. Friend says is true. It is only recently that the London County Council has been in a position to search for a permanent site. It was only on 21st April that the Ministry supplied the necessary statistical information to the London County Council to put it in the position of making an intelligent and purposeful search for the permanent site.
I see the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster shaking his head. I invite him to correct me if I am wrong. I say categorically—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that it was only upon 21st April last that the necessary information and figures were supplied by the Ministry to the London County Council so that it could know what kind of site was required, what accommodation was needed, and so forth.
It would be much better if we could delete Clause 9, cut out this temporary expedient, and find a permanent site and do the job properly. The use of the cattle market at Islington as an annexe to Covent Garden Market will, in the view of many people in that borough, obstruct and deny the redevelopment of a really awful part of London. I say awful in the sense that the buildings are awful. As to the electorate, I would not for a moment at this time say that they were awful, but it is certainly a part of London that requires to be redeveloped as soon as possible.
It is a sizeable site. There are about 44 acres altogether, including the slaughterhouse. In case anybody suggests that this site is suitable only for trade, commerce or business, because of the presence of the slaughterhouse nearby, I should like to mention the present position regarding the slaughterhouse. It is at the end of its life. It belongs to the City Corporation, which has allowed it to become out of date and inadequate. It will have to be completely rebuilt and modernised, and that is known and agreed. The hon. Member who represents the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) knows that it is so, and the Minister also knows that it is so. Indeed, under recent regulations issued by the Ministry of Agriculture about the improvement of slaughterhouses, that in Islington will have to be dealt with before very long because of its antiquity. It is still there, and it ought to go. It ought to be cleared out and the site fully redeveloped.
It is appalling to think that along the streets in this part of London one can see cattle being moved, while all the traffic is held up. There are cries and shouts from the drovers, with dogs chasing around, and omnibuses and cars held up while sheep and bullocks walk on the pavement. This happens within five miles of this House. Of course, this business of bringing cattle into London and driving them through the streets to be slaughtered belongs to the nineteenth century. It is completely outmoded, and it will have to go. The filth that is left behind is indescribable, and on grounds of hygiene alone this state of affairs should be ended very quickly.
The slaughterhouse will have to be permanently resited and certainly will


have to be rebuilt and modernised before very long. If it was out of the way we could have a site of 44 acres in Islington which could be adequately redeveloped. I must remind the House that the City Corporation, with the support of the Minister, and through the provisions of Clause 9 of the Bill, is seeking to prevent the redevelopment of this blighted area, which is what it is. I think that I cannot do better in this respect than quote the words of the planning officer of the London County Council when he gave evidence before the Committee on the Bill in another place. He said:
It is vital that the County Council should retain planning control over the future use of the Cattle Market.
To some extent, this may impinge upon the Bill which is to follow. I think that it is agreed that the Bill which we are now discussing and the L.C.C. General Powers Bill, which we shall be discussing next, are interlocked, and have to be considered jointly on certain points.
He went on:
The Council attaches the greatest importance to its proper replanning.
That is the whole area, including the area on which the abattoir now stands. He went on:
The replanning of the Islington area is just as important as the replanning of Covent Garden.
Hon. Members probably did not think that that was so. Covent Garden is the centre of a thriving and wealthy trade where a great deal of money is made and where wealthy firms have their premises, whereas Islington is a borough where there are "slummy" parts which should be swept away. But I impress upon the House that it is the considered opinion of the planning officer of London that the redevelopment of the cattle market in the Islington area is as important as the redevelopment at Covent Garden.
He went on:
I think it should be realised that the acceptance by the County Council as planning authority to use some 6 acres of the Cattle Market site for a use that is not their ultimate use is one which seriously perturbs the Planning Authority.
The potential changes that can take place in Islington concern over 48 acres of a most blighted part of London, or rather a most disgraceful part of London under modern requirements.
If Clause 9 is passed, this blighted and

disgraceful part of London will continue to be blighted and disgraceful. The planning officer went on—

Mr. E. Partridge: On a point of order. The document being quoted in extenso is not before the House. May we have that document, or a cessation of this recital at great length of a document which is not before the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have not myself seen the document. It seems to me that it is very difficult to separate the powers which are proposed to be taken in the County Council Bill from those which are proposed to be taken in the City of London Bill. They all make part of the one scheme, and although I hope that there will be no repetition when we come to the County Council Bill, I think that for the purposes of explaining objections to the City of London Bill the hon. Member is in order.

Mr. Evans: I think that it will be found that the two Bills are interlocked and must be discussed together at certain points.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order. You were pointing out something, Mr. Speaker, which may be very important to later debates. Do I understand from what you said that when we reach the London County Council Bill we will not be able to have the same arguments all over again?

Mr. Speaker: There is a Standing Order which enables me to intervene in cases of tedious repetition.

Mr. Evans: The planning officer went on to say:
Islington is the second lowest efficiency area of London for open space. Islington is short of 400 acres of open space.
This blighted area is crying out for open space and slum clearance. The social consequences, the bad habits and antisocial actions, and so on, that flow from a slum area like this are difficult to calculate. The report adds:
It is the Council's desire that at the very earliest date 18 acres of this area will be brought over into open space.
That is the intention of the planning authority—
The housing position is so severe that in a comprehensive piece of planning here over


1,650 people can be rehoused. At the same time the educational needs are to provide requirements for 2,000 places on the Caledonian Market site. In allowing a temporary use of this site for empty containers, the Council realise immediately they are prejudicing and setting back other major responsibilities which lie on their shoulders.
The report concludes with these words:
If this area becomes one which is also used for full produce"—
and I hope the Minister will hearken to these words—
it will in itself cause greater difficulties than only limiting it to the empty containers.
If Clause 9 becomes law the replannig of this blighted area will be seriously delayed. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but there are one or two vital matters to be considered. Hon. Members may laugh, but if they came to my "surgery" and listened to some of the awful cases, they would realise that the redevelopment of this area is essential. We know enough about child delinquency and young men getting out of order. If social conditions remain as they are we are inviting this kind of social disturbance. This is a serious matter which should be properly considered and not one about which we should be light-hearted.
This site which the City Corporation is seeking to take for a temporary period for produce at Covent Garden covers about 9 acres. It has been left derelict for fourteen years. One finds willow herb and dandelions growing there. It is like a piece of open country. There are two housing authorities in the area and despite their efforts to get the City Corporation to agree that at least part of the site should be used for social purposes their applications have been refused and the land has been left derelict.
Furthermore, a number of surrounding houses, which are the property of the City Corporation, have been allowed to deteriorate to the point of being unfit for human habitation. I believe that the Corporation has allowed this as a matter of policy, because it hopes that it may be able to make the cattle market in Islington a horticultural sub-market of Covent Garden. It was not until the Runciman Committee reported, and the Corporation saw its chance to exploit this area commercially, that it agreed that it could be used. Up till then it had refused to allow it to be used.
Having looked at this site carefully and studied the approaches to it, and the network of roads between the cattle market and Covent Garden, it is my considered opinion that if the cattle market comes into use as an annexe to Covent Garden the flow of traffic between it and Covent Garden will be increased rather than diminished. Traders will be told, "You must take your empties to the cattle market, where you will find the warehouse. Your apples, oranges and bananas will be at Covent Garden Market." Having proceeded to the annexe at Islington to unload their empties, traders will have to proceed from there to Covent Garden proper to obtain their produce.
If they are approaching from the north the amount of travelling they will have to do will not be increased, but if they come in from the east, west or south of London they will have to pass through the Covent Garden area and beyond it in order to reach the annexe and unload their empties, after which they will turn back once again to Covent Garden. Those traders will have a greater mileage to cover in the inner five-mile area of London than they now have, when using only Covent Garden. It has not been proved that the use of Islington Cattle Market as an annexe will diminish the traffic congestion at Covent Garden.
The permanent solution of the problems of Covent Garden Market can be found by the appropriate authority to handle the matter, the London County Council. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary for the City Corporation to take the powers which it seeks under Clause 9. The London County Council is the fire authority and the planning authority, and it can work closely with the police authorities in the Metropolitan area on traffic problems. It has wide experience of the Metropolitan area and it should be able before long to find a permanent site so that the Minister's problem is solved permanently.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the City Corporation had not come forward with this bright idea a permanent site would have been found by now. The intervention of the City Corporation with a temporary solution has delayed the finding of that site. If the City Corporation had not intervened, the London County Council would have


found a permanent site and the work would be done.
I mentioned earlier that a joint committee of the Ministry and the planning authority of the London County Council had been set up and that an extensive search for a permanent site was going on. The Ministry of Agriculture has within recent weeks provided the planning authority with the necessary detailed information about the requirements for a permanent site and that joint committee should be able to find a solution to the Minister's problem. I hope that the appropriate authority will be allowed to do this. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can, whatever the fate of this Clause, to support the planning authority of London in its efforts to find a permanent site.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to Second the Motion.
Although some hon. Members may think that this question is not important, it is of very great significance to the people who live in the borough of Islington. I am intervening in this discussion because I am a resident in that borough. Until a few weeks ago, I was a member of that worthy and progressive body, the borough council, and I know that there is a great deal of feeling in the borough about the proposal that the Metropolitan Cattle Market should be turned into a sub-depot for the Covent Garden Market. There is a great deal of feeling about it in Islington. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that when they are considering the transfer of storage space from Covent Garden to Islington they should also consider the feelings of the people living in the borough.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) on his very fine speech. He covered most of the points, but I disagree with two things he said. First, Islington is not a slum. Parts of it are deplorable and the borough council is doing its best to improve them. But there are other parts which the council has helped to improve, and there are now in Islington as attractive centres of recreation as anyone could wish to have. By accepting this Clause we shall be impeding the work of the borough

council and its attempts to improve the amenities of Islington. We must give the council an opportunity of gaining access to further sites in the borough and developing them as open spaces.
This Bill is the result of an impasse The London County Council originally introduced a Bill which would have prohibited the storage in the Covent Garden area of any combustible material because the buildings in which it would be stored were old and presented a serious fire risk. Because that Bill was not passed, owing to the objections of the Select Committee in another place, we now have this Clause before us. I suggest that it would be much more satisfactory if the London County Council pursued other methods to achieve its objective of improving the position at Covent Garden Market rather than by introducing this Clause into this Bill.
This operation will be carried out at the expense of the citizens of Islington. They are paying the price for the transfer of the storage space from Covent Garden to their borough, and it is a serious price. There are alternative uses for which the site could be used. As the L.C.C. pointed out in its own statement, it has considered that the site of the Metropolitan Cattle Market should be developed either as an open space or for housing or for educational purposes. The Council admits in its own memorandum that the borough of Islington has the greatest open space deficiency of any borough in the County of London, that is, 0·29 acres for 1,000 of the population, compared with the Council's interim standard of 2½ acres per 1,000 and its ultimate objective of 4 acres per 1,000. Here is an opportunity to make a site available for an open space for recreational purposes. Yet that opportunity is being thrown away because those people who are responsible, both in the London County Council and elsewhere, have given insufficient thought and energy to the development of alternative sites as storage space for the Covent Garden market. As a result, the people in Islington have to pay the price.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) said earlier that the City of London Corporation is a law-abiding body. I wish to ask why the City of London and the London County Council have to


enter into a complicated agreement on this whole question. Not only was the agreement complicated, but apparently it took several weeks to arrive at it. Both the authorities, we understand, engaged in the curious charade of cross-petitioning each other's Bills in order to preserve their positions. If the City of London Corporation is so anxious to follow the advice of the planning authority, why was it necessary to have this curious business of cross-petitioning and the statement circulated by the L.C.C.?
What has been done to consult the people who are directly interested in this development? What has been done to secure the agreement of the Islington Borough Council which represents the people of Islington who are directly affected?
There are alternative uses for this site. One is housing. Hon. Members have pointed out that the housing situation in Islington is serious. There were 16,000 people on the waiting list there, but the borough council had to scrap the list because it saw no possibility in the foreseeable future of being able to offer housing accommodation. I was on the borough council at the time and I had the experience of seeing the council tear up the chances and dash the hopes of those 16,000 people because there were so few sites in the borough available for housing. Here is a site available, yet it is to be allocated under the Bill for private storage space for Covent Garden Market.
Another use to which the site could be put is for an open space. The Borough Council of Islington has done an excellent job in improving the open space position, yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has pointed out, the area is blighted and it desperately needs more space as a breathing lung. It will certainly not be in the interests of the people of the area if the cattle market is turned into a storage centre.
Another requirement in the area—I could quote from a statement circulated by the London County Council—is a site for a new secondary school. I would like to hear from hon. Members who speak on behalf of the London County Council what other facilities they are making available for the development of this school, which will soon be urgently

needed by the children in this locality. A further aspect of the Clause is the increase of expense and inconvenience which will be caused if the site is used for storage. Not only will this arrangement increase the cost to people who use Covent Garden Market but it will result in an increase in the price of horticultural produce.
This is a compromise proposal which does not consider the real interests of the consumer or the effective utilisation of Covent Garden Market for horticultural produce. It will be much better if the Clause is completely withdrawn and further thought is given to the development of sites on the outskirts of London for the distribution of horticultural produce, rather than congest the streets of London with market lorries which, if the Clause is passed, will come into the centre of London and then go out to Islington with their containers. It will definitely be in the interests of consumers generally that the Clause be deleted.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I have some sympathy with this Instruction, at least until we have a little more information on the provisions of the Bill. I am grateful for the indication which Mr. Speaker gave before he left the Chair that we might be fairly liberal in reading this Bill and the London County Council Bill together, because in respect of Clause 9 and the particular proposal in relation to Covent Garden the two Bills are almost inseparable. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I may have your indulgence in that respect.
At first sight, one has cause to be grateful to any authority which puts forward any plan to relieve the situation at Covent Garden. I certainly wish to acknowledge what clearly is an effort by both authorities to that end. It is now two and a half years since Lord Runciman's Committee reported at great length, but we must admit that there has been no physical diminution of the worst evils at Covent Garden. In terms of traffic and the way in which business is conducted, conditions are worse than when that Committee reported. I can think of no parallel in any city with thirty acres of this kind so ill-suited to the task it has to perform.
The Runciman Committee was mainly concerned with traffic congestion and the desirability of improving facilities from the point of view of efficiency of trading. Its recommendations were designed to relieve those conditions. My impression, which is supported by what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), is that Clause 9, taken in conjunction with the London County Council's provision, has a rather different motive and therefore needs different consideration.
I think I have the support of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) when I say that fire is the main concern and that traffic congestion is a secondary consideration. I support all that hon. Member said about fire risks I have no doubt that the nature of these buildings, their contents and the storage of highly inflammable material provide a great fire risk, although I can think of other places where it is not much less. We have to decide tonight whether the main risk is fire or a total paralysis of traffic in the area. The same solution does not necessarily meet the two dangers.
The first thing to say about Clause 9 is that it bears no relation to any of the recommendations of Lord Runciman's Committee. Lord Runciman offered a number of possibilities. The first was to resite Covent Garden; that is not proposed. Another was to rebuild on the present site; that is not proposed. There might be general improvements on the present site, or, fourth, the volume of business might be reduced to what the market can handle. The Committee went on to mention a fifth course, adding:
but this can hardly be recommended. It is to allow the traffic in and around the market to continue to increase without restriction in the not unreasonable expectation that this will begin to strangle the market and force trade and traders to move elsewhere.
One anxiety I have about this plan is that it might have just that outcome—that it will not relieve, but tend to exacerbate the traffic conditions which were the main concern of the Runciman Committee, but, for reasons we all appreciate, not of the London County Council.
The second thing to which we have to draw attention is that the long Title of the City of London Bill refers to conferring powers

upon the Corporation of London with respect to the provision of storage facilities for horticultural produce and containers the acquisition of land
and so forth. That might lead us to suppose that provisions in this Bill would enable the traders of Covent Garden to store their surplus containers and horticultural produce in the market buildings which we discussed earlier. On this I seek some assurance from my hon. Friend, because I understand that this may not be so. I believe that in the understanding reached between the Corporation with this Bill and the L.C.C. with its Bill, that is not the position at all, despite what is said in the long Title.
Many have advocated, and I would certainly support—and I am not sure that I should be supporting this Instruction in these circumstances—the permanent provision of storage facilities elsewhere, for both bulk produce and empty containers. I can see some point in trying to relieve the traffic congestion at Covent Garden with an manoeuvre of that sort. For reasons about which I am not clear, however, no bulk produce, with certain exceptions, is to be allowed in the Caledonian Market, which is to be kept for empty containers. I am puzzled why this is so. If it is suitable for containers, why not for produce? Containers must be at least as inflammable as produce, if not more inflammable. I see no convincing explanation of this decision.
Such evidence as I have seen from the Covent Garden Tenants' Association strikes me as very convincing, and I think that both they and the Minister of Agriculture would like the new Caledonian Market site to be used as far as possible for bulk storage as well as for empty containers. For very good reasons, I should entirely support them. I therefore cannot understand this plan which, notwithstanding the long Title of the Bill, will not do what the House may be led to suppose.
Furthermore, there is to be a restriction not only in the use and purpose of Covent Garden but also in time. I will not waste the time of the House in discussing that, because it has already been mentioned, but the powers under the Clause are to last for only five years, and one point which the Runciman Committee made was that any change made at Covent Garden must give the traders there the chance of a reasonably settled


future. It is pointless to uproot Covent Garden Market or to disrupt the present routine of the market and to expect people to accept it for a short time. The Committee felt that any tinkering with the problem would not encourage cooperation, and I think that the Committee was absolutely right.
Not the least of my anxieties about this joint plan of the Corporation and the London County Council is that it does not seem likely to obtain the cooperation of those it is designed to affect. A large number of the principal interests involved in Covent Garden have petitioned against the Bill. It may be possible to resolve their doubts and to bring them wholeheartedly into the scheme, but in my opinion no plan for Covent Garden has a chance of success and of improving the present situation unless those involved feel that it is in their interests to make it work. That is a prerequisite to any scheme. It does not matter what the Corporation of the City of London or the London County Council lays down; if the traders of Covent Garden do not want the plan to work, I am very doubtful whether it will work. Nor do I blame them. I should probably feel the same way. These two bodies have gone to immense trouble to produce the Bill and to work out the plan, but I wonder how far they have gone in trying to enlist the assistance of the traders.
I do not know how effectively one can assert, as did the hon. Member for Islington, South-West, that the plan will increase motor traffic congestion. I do not see how it will reduce it. I do not see how the plan can relieve the amount of motor traffic which requires to enter and leave the Covent Garden area. It is possible that the large amount of transport will not be reduced but increased and that the atrophy with which Covent Garden Market afflicts the traffic area nearby will be spread.
Finally, my main objection is that it is possible that the Bill will lead to further delay in remedial action to what has become, in terms of the whole capital, rather a scandal. I am not suggesting that anybody has been dilatory. No doubt there are great difficulties. The Runciman Committee urged a definite pronouncement on the future of this market. That was urged two and

a half years ago. A year ago my right hon. Friend promised legislation making statutory a Covent Garden market authority, without which nothing will move very fast. He went on:
The Government have decided that the first step, in order to concentrate Covent Garden Market and to reduce traffic congestion, should be the provision elsewhere of storage premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1958; Vol. 589, c. 212.]
In that statement my right hon. Friend gave the House very definitely to understand that this alternative accommodation would include, not only empty containers, but produce. In view of what I said earlier, at this juncture that point needs raising and explaining.
There could hardly be a worse introduction to the establishment of a market authority than a plan, or what some might regard as a half plan, which will exasperate the interests of those who feel they are principally concerned, or a plan in which many of them have not the faith which they should have.
The final quotation I should like to make is from paragraph 199 of the Runciman Committee's Report, which after all is the main plan on this. It took a long time to produce the Report. It says:
We consider that there is still plenty of scope for worthwhile improvements to be effected at Covent Garden, but little prospect that anything can be done unless the owners of the market, market traders, the Union, the police, and the local authorities work in cooperation with each other. Representatives of these interests should be called together to consider what improvements can be made and how carried into effect.
Naturally it is disquieting to find that a very large number of the interests involved—I do not say all—are opposing Clause 9. I hope that it will not lead the market authority, as I believe it might, to have the worst of two worlds. It will not have a clear field in which to do what it thinks fit, because this temporary plan, as one must call it, will be started. It will be faced with this plan lasting until 1965, say—that is the five-year period—which might be contrary to its own ideas. It could lead to nothing permanently effective being done on this problem, which has lasted almost as long as any in our history.
I advise my hon. Friend that he has to decide whether to back what is proving a very long-term but which may be a successful and sound plan, or to


indulge in what I must regard at the moment as a diversion, which might at a later stage embarrass the main plan.
For that reason I support the Instruction until we receive further assurances.

10.13 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: We have had much discussion and a good many arguments already. I hope that I shall be able to put the case I wish to put without taking anything like as much time. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—I had no idea that he was going to make it—and the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) seemed to me to be founded on the argument that this plan, part of which is embodied in Clause 9 and the remainder of which is embodied in the L.C.C. Bill, did not afford any permanent solution of the Covent Garden problem. No one has ever suggested that it did, no one ever intended that it should, and no one ever thought that it possibly could.
I must tell very briefly the story of how the plan came into existence in order that I may refute the suggestion which may have been made that it is an intervention by the City Corporation into a matter in which, as one hon. Member said—I entirely agree with him—the City has no standing and where it has no direct concern.
What is the history of this plan? The Covent Garden problem is extremely complicated, nearly as complicated as the speeches in which the Motion has been moved. It has been a problem of London, to my knowledge, for 35 years. I remember it when I first became a member of the London County Council. Throughout the whole of that time, one authority after another and one inquiry after another has examined the problem and tried to find a solution. As to the difficulties of the position, no one has any doubt.
The last attempt was the Runciman Committee. That Committee made recommendations for what it believed might be a long-term solution of the problems of traffic congestion, fire, efficient management, and so on, at Covent Garden. The Committee also recognised that a permanent solution of that kind must take a very long time to

work out, and it suggested that there were certain problems that were of such an urgent character that immediate steps should, if possible, be taken to deal with them pending the completion of the long-term solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has referred to the statement made by the Minister on 11th July, 1958, when he commended the Runciman Report to the House. The Runciman Committee accepted the view that there should be improvements in the market in the interests of greater efficiency, smoother traffic flow and reduction of fire risk. The Minister went on to say that the Committee decided that the first step should be, as my hon. Friend has said, to endeavour to find additional storage space which could be used for the purpose of storage of empties and, to an extent, of storage of bulk goods not required in the market but which could be sold by sample.
The Minister said that it was the Government's intention to try to find that accommodation. The Government have been trying for well over a year to find it. The London County Council has been trying to find it. All sorts of people have been trying to find the alternative site, but whatever their efforts may have been that site has not yet been found. A number of sites have been considered. Two or three are still under consideration.
In the course of that search for an alternative site, which, it was hoped, might be a permanent one, either the Ministry, the London County Council or someone else concerned with the site—certainly it was not the City's suggestion; where it came from I do not quite know—cast eyes upon the site of the Caledonian Market and the suggestion was made that it might well provide the accommodation required to deal with the urgent problems of traffic and fire risk as a temporary measure pending the development of a proper scheme with a permanent site.
For that purpose, the Islington site had several obvious advantages. It was in hand. It was cleared. It was unoccupied. It was of adequate size and it was, broadly speaking, in a satisfactory position. Those all mounted up to the fact that it was a site which could be got into operation in the course of two


or three months from the time the power was given to the City Corporation to use it in that way. There were obvious arguments against the Islington site. I do not for one moment quarrel with the arguments advanced by hon. Members representing Islington constituencies. Islington certainly badly needs housing space. It badly needs open space.
I am quite certain that any proposal to use this site permanently for market purposes would have met with resistance not only in Islington but certainly from the London County Council as planning authority, and from a great many others who would feel that that was a wrong permanent use of this land. But that is why, when the London County Council, as the planning authority, considered this proposal it said that it must be for a limited number of years, and, by agreement with the City Corporation, which I repeat has no direct responsibility in this matter, it was decided that a limit of five years should be put on the use of the site. Similarly, it was felt desirable that there should be some limit of its use for filled cases lest there might be a development of a complete secondary market associated with Covent Garden but not complementary to it.
This plan to make temporary use of a highly desirable site for a very necessary purpose had the complete and unanimous approval of the London County Council. There is no party question here. It naturally has the approval of the City Corporation and it has the full approval of the Minister who has already expressed that approval publicly and, I am sure, is prepared to repeat it tonight in this House. It is approved by everybody.
What is the other argument that has been used against this plan? The hon. Member for Islington, South-West is certainly the first person whom I have heard in any quarter who has suggested that it would make matters worse. I am afraid my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford who has taken the same point that it would increase the traffic, has done so without studying the operations of the market. All the market operators, although there are admittedly some things in the London County Council Bill in relation to licensing which they do not like, feel that to get the empties away from Covent

Garden will vastly improve the traffic conditions. It is not a question of the volume of traffic that goes into or comes out of the market. The trouble is the volume of traffic that gets jammed in the market because the filled lorries cannot be unloaded through the pile of empties. It is the traffic which is held steady, which cannot get out of the market, and is frozen in the market, which causes the traffic jams. So long as the volume flows in and out there is no traffic jam.
The other point is the question of fire risk. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West, in the first quarter of an hour of his speech, made a most conclusive case for the plan when he painted clearly, vividly and without any exaggeration the grave fire risk which arises from this accumulation of empties in the Covent Garden market. There is no question about that risk. If the empty cases can be got away the fire risk is diminished and no one has contradicted that.
I sum up by saying that this is not intended to be a permanent solution of the Govent Garden problem. It is intended to be a contribution for a short period to the solution of the problems by dealing with two of the most urgent difficulties in the market. It will also have the effect of making working conditions in the market better, but it claims to produce those results for a limited time. It is not a plan which can in the nature of it preclude the use of that site for housing and open spaces when Islington is ready to use it. I am certain that hon. Members who represent Islington will be the first to agree with me that until something is done about the abattoir the site is not ideal as a building site, but it will be one day and this plan will do nothing to stop it.
The plan is intended as a stopgap to alleviate the conditions at Covent Garden Market. It has the complete approval of the London County Council as planning authority, of the City Corporation, of the Minister and of the authority in Islington which petitioned against the Bill in Committee in another place but has not petitioned against it in this House. I do not want to draw any deductions from that, to assume anything in relation to it or to comment upon it. I merely state it as a fact, and I do not wish to draw any conclusions from the fact. This is


a plan which we believe is of value, which we believe is feasible, which can be quickly operated and which has the united support of all the local authorities concerned.

Hon. Members: No.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I said previously that I would rise at some stage to indicate the Government's view on this Clause. At this late hour I propose to speak only briefly, as I am sure hon. Members would wish to make clear where we stand.
The crying need to reduce traffic congestion in Covent Garden has already been emphasised a great deal and I am sure it needs no further emphasis from me, but the facts stated, even by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), I think make it abundantly clear that something drastic must be done before long in order to deal with this problem. The hon. Member rightly drew attention to the other problem of fire risk. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the fair way in which he brought both points clearly to the notice of the House. Both are absolutely vital to a consideration of this problem. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will take careful and particular note of the appalling fire risk problems and the concern of the London County Council, very rightly, to tackle them.
I must say a word about the permanency or otherwise of this site. It is my right hon. Friend's hope and intention that a site for a permanent annexe to Govent Garden Market will be found in the fairly near future, but, as the House will appreciate, it is not easy to find in the centre of London a site sufficiently large and otherwise suitable which has not been already earmarked for other purposes. It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend gladly accepted the opportunity of availing himself for a temporary period only of the Caledonian Market site. It should be quite clear, however, that we look on this strictly as a temporary site, and I would remind the House of the provision in Clause 9 (3) which limits the powers in regard to this Clause to a period of five years.
The House tonight is being asked only to confirm the right to use this site as a market for five years. This could not be extended without the opportunity for

further consideration of the matter by the House itself. I maintain that this is an important safeguard for those hon. Members who wish to see this site developed—

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he accepts the limitation that the site should be used only for storing empty containers, as was agreed by the local authorities?

Mr. Godber: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment I will deal with that point. He will agree that the question of restricting it to five years is important.

Mr. Ede: Does that mean that if the promoters in five years' time bring in a Bill to extend the time the Government are pledged to oppose it?

Mr. Godber: Certainly not. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no Government could give an undertaking of that sort. What I am saying—I made it perfectly clear—is that before any further extension could be made the House would have to be consulted. That was all I was saying, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman heard me say it perfectly well.
This is an important safeguard, but I reiterate that we are pushing ahead with every possible endeavour to obtain a permanent site. My Ministry and the other Ministries concerned, together with the planning authority, are keeping closely in touch on this.
I want to take up a point made by one hon. Member. He made particular reference to some document of 21st April this year. There was no substance in that. The L.C.C., like my Ministry, has been urgently looking for sites for a great deal longer period. The L.C.C. was merely given some additional information on that date.

Mr. A. Evans: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is on the record that the necessary information to enable the planning authority to make a search was received from the Ministry only some time in April this year.

Mr. Godber: That matter related to quantities of boxes. It was a point of some substance perhaps, but the L.C.C. had ample information before and was searching before. I assure the House


that it is wrong to attach particular importance to that incident. The fact is that the search has been going on.
What I am trying to inform the House is that two possible sites have recently been selected for further consideration. Both sites present definite possibilities, and one of them could probably be acquired and developed fairly quickly. I am afraid, however, that the position has not yet developed sufficiently for us to be able to clinch the matter, and it is because of this that we attach such importance to obtain the right for a temporary period to use the Caledonian Market site. It is possible that our plans might go ahead quicker than we expect, in which case we might be able to go straight to the permanent site without using the Islington site at all, but it would be most imprudent for us to count on this, and if we are to ensure making progress with our plans for Covent Garden we feel it imperative to have this site available to us, if only as an insurance.
I would remind the House that all the time congestion at Covent Garden grows worse and we really cannot afford to risk any further delay in our plans for Covent Garden itself. That applies to the fire risk as well.
As regards the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I would remind him that when the Bills were in another place my right hon. Friend submitted a report in which he stated that if the agreement were implemented fulfilment of an important part of the Government's plans for relief of

congestion in the market area would be prejudiced. He urged that the London County Council and the City Corporation should reconsider the terms of the agreement with a view to allowing the facilities at Islington to be used temporarily for the storage of produce from Covent Garden as well as for the storage of empty containers. The Committee in another place, in passing the Bills, added a rider to the effect that it was strongly of the opinion that the agreement between the L.C.C. and the City Corporation should be amended so as to provide that the cattle market should be used for dual purpose storage.
My right hon. Friend regards it as of the utmost importance that the way should be left clear for negotiation between the parties concerned with a view to securing some modification in the interests of market users and of the relief of traffic congestion. If the agreement were annexed as a Schedule to the Bill this would add yet more rigidity where what is wanted is flexibility to enable the interests of all concerned to be met.
I suggest, therefore, that the fears which have been expressed tonight, while I quite accept and understand that they are very proper constituency points to raise, are matters which should be looked at in the wider context of the urgent need to do something in Covent Garden for the benefit of those who trade there, for the benefit of those who work there, and for the abolition of fire risk.
I have tried to deal very quickly with these points, but I thought that the House would wish to know the Government's views.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak immediately after the Minister and the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), because the situation with which we are confronted has been made infinitely worse by the Minister's statement. I shall be interested to hear what the representatives of the London County Council say about the Minister's remarkable statement. If it meant anything, it meant that the hon. Gentleman is now hoping that the London County Council and the City Corporation will go back on the agreement which they have made and which was the basis of the compromise out of which the Bill arose. This is a serious matter, not only for the citizens of Islington, on whose behalf I have a special duty to speak, but also for the whole population of London and the entire industry. I am very glad to observe from the example of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that concern about the Bill is not limited to Islington.
It is shared by the London County Council which petitioned against the Bill and which was subsequently induced to withdraw its petition on the strength of a definite agreement that if it did so there would be conditions limiting the use of the site in Islington, both in period of time and with regard to user. Now we have heard the Minister say that he is hoping that parties to the agreement will betray still further the interests of the people of Islington.
Therefore, I hope that the House will excuse me if I put the case not only for Islington but for the whole of the community. I also represent trade union interests. Regardless of party, status of interest, all the citizens of Islington are up in arms about this proposal to foist on the most heavily congested London borough part or whole of Covent Garden Market.
I do not want to repeat anything which has been said before, but I tell the House that during the last few weeks I have received by post petitions from all kinds of organisations in Islington, from churches, youth clubs, Islington Trades Council, Conservatives, Labour organisations, Boy Scouts—[Laughter.] Hon. Members need not laugh. We are

desperately short of open spaces in Islington. There is not one. We want more opportunities for Boy Scouts and other youth organisations to be able to employ their leisure time more usefully.
I regret to say that we have had a great deal of juvenile delinquency recently in Islington, and one of the reasons is the shortage of open spaces. I do not know whether it is in order to quote the Duke of Edinburgh who in Canada was talking about the physical fitness of the nation and pleading for opportunities for open-air development and sport. It is lack of those opportunities in Islington which makes it so disgraceful that a proposition such as this should be put forward, even if only for a temporary period, let alone for an extended period, or extended purpose as the Minister suggests.
It is not only from the point of view of the welfare of the citizens of Islington that I am concerned. The borough council is repeatedly pointing out the dangers to public health. I mention that in addition to the danger of traffic and problems such as the noise, the nuisance and the inconvenience.
I make no apology for reminding the House that in the last few weeks Islington has unfortunately suffered from a severe attack of polio. We have had 38 serious cases of polio in our borough in the last few weeks, and four of them were fatal. One of them was of a boy of ten, Michael Adams, who was buried this afternoon. Those are serious matters and they result partly from and are certainly accentuated by the lack of open spaces.
There is another matter which concerns the local authority. Unhappily, in Islington we suffer to a very large degree from rat infestation. In my "surgery" on Fridays I hear over and over again about the dilapidated, antiquated and rat-infested houses in which whole families are having to live, and I frequently appeal to the local authority to deal with specific cases. The Medical Officer of Health for Islington told me this morning that one of the strongest reasons why he is opposed to the scheme is that if we move a great deal of vegetables and horticultural produce into the borough it is bound to increase the risks of rat infestation. This is a matter of great concern to the borough. Only


yesterday I received a petition passed unanimously by the Ruridecanal Conference, expressing very deep concern at what would happen if this, the one site available for adding to our open space in Islington, is denied us because of the agreement reached between the City Corporation and the London County Council.
I would remind the House that this agreement was reached without any consultation with the borough council—and, I gather, without much consultation with the Islington members of the London County Council. I would be content to ask for the judgment of the House on this Motion to leave out the Clause if it rested on Islington's case alone, but it does not. As the hon. Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Deedes) and others have pointed out, this is not a proper solution of the Covent Garden Market problem. It is obvious from what was said both by the Minister and by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster that they do not regard it as a suitable solution. It is not clear to me whether it is put forward as a permanent or a temporary solution; some people say one thing and some the other.
We agree that there should be some solution of the Covent Garden Market problem, and the sooner the better. We all agree that the fire risk should be dealt with and that the traffic congestion is a disgrace to the Metropolis. Therefore, there must be a solution, but it must be a permanent solution. It is said that this is a temporary solution, but the House must understand that any temporary solution prejudices a permanent one. The Minister and the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), know that the way to deal with the problem is to find a permanent solution. The Runciman Committee recommended the setting up of a market authority, which is what the Minister promised to do by legislation, and then let the market authority find a site, control the organisation, and satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
Let us have a permanent solution, but do not let us pretend—because it is hypocritical to pretend—that a temporary solution assists a permanent solution. It

is idle to pretend that if the Clause is agreed it will assist in finding a permanent solution. We have heard vague phrases about the Minister's searching for a site. There should be a viligant search for a site, but if the Bill is passed there will be no incentive to look for one or pressure to do so either upon the City Corporation or the London County Council.
It may be that it is the duty of the London County Council to find a site. I would prefer the County Council to do it, because it is the planning authority, and has said, both in its petition against the Bill and in evidence given by its own representatives, including its architect, that it is completely opposed, on planning grounds, to Covent Garden Market going to Islington. It knows it is wrong and has said so. It may be because of some compromise—I will return to that point in a moment—that it has withdrawn its petition. But I still believe that it is its duty to find a permanent site.
One of my complaints is that until recently it has not been vigilant in finding a site. About four weeks ago, my hon. Friends who represent the Islington constituencies had a meeting with the leader of the London County Council and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham to examine this question and see what was the proper solution. We agreed on two things, that the real desideratum was to find a permanent site as a permanent solution and, if possible, to avoid going to Islington. We were told they had a good prospect of finding a site.
We asked how long the Council had been looking for a site and we were told for three weeks. I was amazed. I thought that the London County Council had been searching diligently for months and years. But we were told—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham will be glad to confirm this—that the Council had been looking only for three weeks, because it knew that there would be opposition to its Bill and that if it did not  itself this Bill also might be thrown out. We were told that even during that period of three weeks one site had been found, and possibly a second, but details could not be disclosed because it might prejudice negotiations.
As a result of the Islington, Borough Council and hon. Members fighting this


Clause tooth and nail, in view of its injustice and humanity, a search had been started to find an alternative site and there seemed to be a good prospect of finding one. I am anxious that the search should continue. I am sure another site will be found, which would make unnecessary the powers for which the City is asking. Therefore I do not want the City to have those powers. I am convinced that if the pressure brought to bear on the L.C.C. and the City during the last few weeks is relaxed, the incentive to the members and officers of the London County Council to do what they ought to have been doing for years will evaporate. Therefore I am determined to do everything possible to maintain that pressure.
There is no reason why the City should have these powers, nor is there any reason why the London County Council should ask that the City should have them. Hon. Members will have seen the most extraordinary document sent out in the last few days and signed by a most extraordinary concatenation of hon. Members—the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and another hon. Member opposite. I do not think I have ever come across a document more confused or specious, and I must detain the House while I say something about it.
The way in which the two Bills have been brought before the House is most confusing. Shortly after the Runciman Report was published advocating the setting up of a market authority; after the Bill of the City Corporation in 1956–57 had been withdrawn, and after the Minister had said he was contemplating the setting up of a market authority, we find this.
Will hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, note this? When the Runciman Committee said that it would set up a market authority, the City Corporation took fright. The Corporation does not want a market authority itself, it wants to be a market authority. My hon. Friend, with his well known belief in nationalised industries, would I am sure prefer to have the industry with which he is so passionately concerned organised by a statutory authority on which his union

is represented, as recommended by the Runciman Committee, than have the industry and the markets run and governed, as the City Corporation wants it, by the City Corporation, whether in the city, in Islington or anywhere else.
The City Corporation says, "This will not do. We do not want a market authority; but we want to be the market authority." It refers to charters given it by King John and says, "We have always had markets and we know how to run them". It pretends to be a democratic authority, which it is not, and a market authority, which it is not. It tries to circumvent the desire of the Government and the Opposition that effect should be given to the Runciman Report.
The idea of a temporary solution arose in this way. Once it was realised that something was to be done about a market authority, London County Council—and we cannot blame it—said, "If anyone other than the statutory authority is to be the market authority, we should like to be the market authority, to find the land and do what the Runciman Committee wants". I do not blame it for that, because I would rather have that Council than the City Corporation.
It opposed the Corporation Bill and said, "As the planning authority, we are not going to allow you to do this. You may be freeholders of the Caledonian Market site, but you are not going to turn that into a dump for containers from Covent Garden Market because we as the planning authority have earmarked that site for a long time. We want to get rid of the abattoir, the rat infestation and the overcrowded conditions and to save this valuable site of 40 acres. We want to plan, zone and develop it as an open space and to protect the children in the schools. We do not want them to suffer from the traffic congestion and fire risks which now exist in Covent Garden Market."
That is the real objective of London County Council. Hon. Members may well say, why is London County Council now adopting this attitude? London County Council has a General Powers Bill which we shall be considering later this evening, which it is very anxious to have, so it tried to do a deal with the City Corporation and an agreement


was reached. I shall not read it to the Committee because many hon. Members have already read it and others can do so. The agreement was made without consulting Islington. I think they had good motives in making that deal. I would not condemn them too much if they lived up to the agreement made. Let the House bear in mind what the agreement says. London County Council—for which I have the greatest admiration—with its intense belief in planning these 40 acres for open space and housing, because of its interests in its General Powers Bill said to the Corporation. "We shall withdraw our petition against your Bill and enter a very complicated agreement with you," which I hope will be a Schedule to the Bill. These two authorities entered into solemn agreement between themselves imposing serious limitations on the City Corporation, first that their user should be limited to five years and secondly that their user should be limited to the purpose of storing empty containers. There should be no bulk sales.
It would not be too bad if the position were that that agreement would be honoured, but it is obvious from what the Minister admitted in proceedings in the House of Lords and from what he said today that he and the whole trading interests would like the agreement to be dishonoured. I am trying to save my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and the London County Council from what I believe is an incredible act of folly. Let me be clear about this: the motives of my hon. Friend and the L.C.C. are perfectly honourable, but I think that they made a stupid bargain.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is discussing the subject matter of his second Instruction. If so, we can take that formally. The agreement seems to be more germane to the second Instruction.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to discuss the agreement but to illustrate why I think that Clause 9 should be omitted. Opinions may differ about the agreement, and my opinion is that the L.C.C. were outwitted in making the agreement by a rather clever City Corporation. For reasons which I think do it credit, the

London County Council, having made a bargain, however bad it may be and however much it may be a betrayal of the people of Islington, feels that as an honourable body it should support the Clause which is based on the agreement.
If hon. Members want to know the true feeling of the L.C.C. they should direct their attention to the evidence given by the L.C.C. officers. Evidence was given in another place by the Superintendent Architect of Metropolitan Buildings an Architect to the L.C.C., the person responsible not only to the people of Islington but also to the people of the rest of London for the planning of the amenities of the area. He said:
The requirements, as far as the Council's responsibilities are concerned, are firstly our interest of open space. Islington is the second lowest efficiency area of London for open space, and even on interim standards of open space under the Development Plan Islington is short of 400 acres of open space.
He went on:
In allowing a temporary use of this site for empty containers the Council realises that they are prejudicing and setting back other major responsibilities which lie on their shoulders, and at the same time if this area becomes one which is also being used for food produce trading or movement it would in itself cause greater difficulties than only limiting it to empty containers.
The people of Islington are having a raw deal, and an attempt is made to assuage them by telling them that this will be for only five years and that it will be limited to empty containers. The people of Islington are entitled to be very suspicious of this specious agreement, which is so contrary to the views of the planning authorities of the London County Council. They are particularly justified in their suspicions, for the whole of the traders, farmers' unions and the tenants say, "We do not want a temporary move to Islington. If we want to move anywhere, we want to move permanently. We are not going to put up our sheds and buildings and pull them down again after five years. It does not make sense." But if it does not make sense to the trading community, what is the result for Islington? How can one say: "All right, it is only for five years. You need not worry after that"? The Minister has said today that he cannot guarantee this will be for only five years, and what of the vested interests in five years' time?

Mr. Mellish: May I say to my hon. Friend that, as far as the trade unions are concerned, it is strictly on the understanding that this is a temporary move that I support this particular Bill and Clause tonight? If there was any doubt about it being temporary, I assure him that I should not be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I am sure that he means every word of what he said, but he cannot guarantee what will happen in five years' time, nor can the City of London. We are not prepared to accept these assurances for the reason that the Minister himself has given. He is hoping that the L.C.C. and the City Corporation will amend this agreement that they have made. They are already trying to amend it, and we have seen the compromise on which the Bill was allowed to go forward from another place.
The Minister is now saying that he does not want to limit it only to the storage of empty containers; but that would be the thin end of the wedge. If that is conceded, it makes it all the more difficult to preserve it as a temporary site, because the bigger the user and the development there the less likely it is that one will be able to turn them out after five years. Imagine the pressure that will be brought to bear on the Minister, or on any Government—and what will the L.C.C. be able to do? Nothing, and it does not even want to. Once it has got its powers, and the City has got its powers, how will there be pressure to find a new site? There will be opposition, for the marketeers will not want one, and the L.C.C. will not want to bother, any more than it has bothered in the past, until three weeks ago.
I beg the House to realise that this unholy alliance has been admitted to be unworkable. The market tenants said that they could not work it in this form. Does the hon. Baronet challenge that?

Sir H. Webbe: I do not want to challenge anything.

Mr. Fletcher: Well, I want to challenge a great deal, because it is important that hon. Members should understand this. All the tenants have put in a petition, not against the Bill but against the limitations in it. They are opposing the Bill because they do not like the five years and the restrictions. They

want it to be wide open. But that is just what the people of Islington do not want and why they cannot accept these half-hearted promises which have been made to them, which are set out in an agreement which is not enforceable. The representatives of the London County Council agreed that it was not enforceable. The representatives of the City Corporation said they would not want to enforce it if they could. They want to change it.
This is an absurd position for the House to find itself in, for a private corporation to have made this agreement, unsatisfactory in its nature, unworkable according to the market interests, fraught with such disastrous consequences for the people of Islington and, on top of all that, fatal to the one thing which everybody who is interested in Covent Garden Market wants to achieve: that is a permanent solution.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ashford. We want a permanent solution. This present solution however, does not satisfy anybody. It certainly does not satisfy the London County Council, which objects to it. It does not satisfy the marketeers, because they are opposed to it. It does not satisfy the City Corporation, because the Corporation, through its counsel in the House of Lords, has asked that the agreement made with the London County Council should be modified. Therefore, it is not only completely unsatisfactory to every interest in the matter, but it is put forward as a temporary solution which is inherently and of necessity bound to defeat the drive, incentive and pressure for a permanent solution.
Nothing could be more ridiculous. I hope that on this Private Bill the House of Commons, which has listened so patiently—I apologise for having been so long, but I feel passionately serious about this in the interests of my constituents—will exercise a judicial function and recognise the deep-rooted objections from all sides to the Bill, the real injustice that it would cause to the people of Islington and, therefore, having given a Second Reading to the Bill, will accept the Motion for the deletion of Clause 9.

11.7 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I had hoped that I would not need to enter into this debate. The facts of the case


have been set out so succinctly by Members on both sides that the House cannot be in any doubt of them. The case for action has been made, but certain points have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and I can hardly let them go unanswered.
My hon. Friend asked about the search for a permanent site and suggested that the London County Council had not been prosecuting the search. I assure the House that that is not the fact. The Council has been looking for a site or sites for a long time. It was only recently, however, that the working party was set up and at that stage the council was in a position to put before the working party and the Minister's officials a number of sites. That is why it is possible at this early stage to record such progress as has been announced to us here tonight.
The second point with which I want to deal is the doubt about what will happen if the Bill is passed containing Clause 9 and what will be the council's attitude to it. The council has made an agreement on the strict understanding that the proposed site is to be a temporary one. It will condition all its actions in the future on that basis. The council happens to believe that if it allowed bulk produce to go on to the temporary site and permanent buildings to be erected, there would be a great danger that the site would not be vacated in the near future.
In view of the fact that it is the planning authority that has very decided ideas that that site should be used for improving the amenities of the Islington area, it is not likely to allow the erection of any permanent building on that site, and any arrangement which might be made under the agreement which has been referred to, which can be flexible so long as it is not passed into law, will be conditioned by the objects which I have just stated—that is to say, that the council will not allow the erection of permanent buildings and it will not allow any substantial quantity of bulk produce to accumulate until after a permanent site has been found. The reason for that is clear. There may well be found a site which would be more satisfactory for permanent use, but that site may require a considerable time to prepare for use as a market.
In the same way as the council and the City have entered into discussions with the Ministry and, after much negotiation, have decided that this is the kind of scheme that can be recommended to the House; in the same way as the council and the City would be faithful to one another, I can give the undertaking to the Islington Members that they can rely on the word of the London County Council. We are satisfied that in this extremely difficult situation we have taken the necessary safeguard to secure the future of the Caledonian Market.
The House should not think that there are 40 acres of open space there ready to be developed. There are not; there are six acres available. As hon. Members for Islington know only too well, a very large part of the site is taken up by the abattoir which is run by the City Corporation. It is of vital concern to London, and it must continue to exist there until an alternative site is found. To find a site for the abattoir is pretty well as difficult as finding a site for market stalls. We do not know how many years it will be before a site is found, but pending that time it is quite impossible to develop any of that land for housing. An area near an abattoir is not a fit and proper place for housing. Therefore, the whole matter is in a state of abeyance.
Although we appreciate the attitude of Islington in the matter, it seems to be a little like a nigger in the woodpile when it has the opportunity to give London this chance to deal with the problem and the opportunity to experiment with new methods. I understand that when the empties are removed there will be the possibility of redeveloping on the Covent Garden site, which might lead to the decision that there is no need to go anywhere else, bearing in mind that at the end of a number of years—we do not know how many—there may not be such things as empty returnable containers. They may be replaced by destructible containers. I would like to say, therefore, that the county council is most anxious that the City of London Bill should go through without alteration. I do ask hon. Members to vote against the Instruction which is before the House.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I do not want to detain the House at this late hour, but this is a most important discussion so far as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Southwest (Mr. A. Evans) is concerned. I would start by reminding the House, in case hon. Members are not yet aware of the fact, that my constituency is almost one mile long and one mile wide, that there is in it not one single piece of open space—indeed, not one single blade of grass—and just outside it there is the Metropolitan Cattle Market. That is where many of my constituents hope to obtain some small amount of open space in the not too far distant future. We see this Bill as something calculated to kill any hope there might be that in five or ten or even fifteen years' time there might be that open space. We see in it the danger that there will be no land for housing purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) referred to one or two matters on which I should like to comment. The hon. Lady disagreed with the contention which has been put to the House that the London County Council had been looking at a site for only three weeks. It is true that the council has been looking for a site for longer than that, but it was made clear at the conference just how long the council has been looking. We were then told that it was "only effectively for three weeks". That is what we were told when we met the Leader of the London County Council, Sir Isaac Hayward. The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham was with us, and that is what we were told.
Furthermore, it is the contention of the hon. Lady, and of the L.C.C., that the matter would be determined by the Metropolitan Cattle Market being used only as a temporary site, but the L.C.C. was against the Cattle Market being used at all. It is only because of this agreement which we are discussing that the county council are saying that they will assist the City Corporation in urging this through.

Mrs. Corbet: The county council was against the site being used permanently, and, therefore, pending negotiations with the City Corporation about this matter, they did lodge a petition; but it was understood that that petition

would be withdrawn when the terms of the agreement were agreed with the City Corporation.

Mr. Reynolds: I do not want to be drawn into discussing the terms of the agreement, but the main provision was the withdrawal of both petitions. I hope that we shall be able to go into that a little later on this evening. My information is that the county council is determined that this should be only a temporary site. But, after all that the hon. Lady has said, will it be within the purview of the county council to say that this will be only a temporary site? Is it in the long run a matter where only the county council will be concerned? The hon. Lady tells us that the L.C.C. will not allow the erection of buildings on the site. Here again, will it be the L.C.C. which will have the last word?
There is the right of appeal from any decision by the L.C.C. and when the Minister of Agriculture tells us that he wants to see storage of full containers on this site then surely that must mean the erection of buildings, and buildings of a type contrary to what appears later on in the agreement. The application will presumably go from the City Corporation to the L.C.C. for planning permission to build these necessary buildings for the storage of full containers.

Mr. Godber: In view of that statement, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no need whatever for permanent buildings for the storage of produce of the type that we have in mind.

Mr. Reynolds: There will nevertheless have to be far more solid buildings than intended by the L.C.C. to allow for the storage of empty containers. If one is to store full containers, it must be accepted that one will need rather more solid buildings than are required for the storage of empty containers, some of which, in fact, do not need any buildings at all. Once one starts putting full containers there, one will need rather more elaborate buildings. That is why in the agreement it is specifically laid down, and has been agreed between the two parties, that it will be only a Dutch barn type of erection that will be put on the site.
When the full containers get there—that is what the Ministry wants to see there—the City Corporation will apply


to the L.C.C. for permission to erect far more substantial buildings there. Then the L.C.C. will turn it down, and there will be an appeal to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and if there is the backing of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Minister of Housing and Local Government is likely to be forced to accept the appeal of the City Corporation and reject the contention of the planning authority, the L.C.C.
In the last resort, it does not rest with the planning authority. There is an appeal to the Minister. The Minister is to a certain extent not completely bound to take into account the views of another Minister in the same Government. However, we know from the Minister of Agriculture that he wants full containers to be stored there, and, on appeal, the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be fairly certain to allow the bigger buildings to be erected there which are necessary for the storage of full containers.
We are told by the hon. Lady that Islington can rely on the L.C.C. As I have said, I should be prepared to accept that, but I understand that in the last resort it is not the L.C.C. that we have to rely upon in both matters. One matter is the use to be made of the site, and as to the other, any appeal as to the question of the buildings does not rest in finality with the L.C.C.; it is Government Ministers who are supporting the City Corporation in the present state of the Clause, rather than the agreement, who will make the final decision.
Another point that the hon. Lady made was that if we used the Metropolitan Cattle Market there might be a possibility of redeveloping the Covent Garden site. I have understood for many years that the L.C.C. has in mind a very big redevelopment scheme in the general Covent Garden Market area. I have always understood—and I think I am interpreting its evidence to the Runciman Committee correctly—that it really wanted to see a very substantial change in the nature of the Covent Garden Market and in the Covent Garden Market area. As I undertand it, it would like to see a very great reduction in the amount of activity in the market and in the Covent Garden Market area. If it could secure it, it would like

to see the disappearance of the market from that part of London and its resiting elsewhere. I believe that that is one of the reasons why it is asking in its Bill for this power to be able to purchase land for various market purposes.
Where, then, have we suddenly got the idea from, about which the hon. Lady has told us—as far as I can see, it is contrary to the general policy of the L.C.C.—that if the Metropolitan Cattle Market can be used, the Covent Garden Market on its present site can be redeveloped?

Mrs. Corbet: Might be redeveloped.

Mr. Reynolds: Might be redeveloped. I accept that correction. But this is contrary to the general idea of the London County Council for that area. There again, the L.C.C. is the planning authority, and so an application for authority would have to go to it. Therefore, on which side of the fence is the London County Council in this matter? As I understand it, that has never been said by anyone else. Until the hon. Lady said it, I had never heard that one of the ideas of using the Metropolitan Cattle Market was to allow the redevelopment of the Covent Garden Market so that the job could be done properly there. I had understood that the Metropolitan Cattle Market site was to be used simply as a store until a permanent site could be found, and then that would become a permanent store for both empty containers and full containers.
This is an important point for my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He seems to be under the impression that the Covent Garden Market will be redeveloped in toto on its present site, whereas as I understand these two Bills that is not the intention. The workers in the Covent Garden Market, once these Bills have gone through, will face the prospect, irrespective of whether the Metropolitan Cattle Market is used or not, of working both in Covent Garden and somewhere else in the greater London area. It is the intention of these Bills to make that a matter of permanency and not a temporary provision.
The Metropolitan Cattle Market might be temporary, but the assumption behind


the two Bills is that sooner or later a permanent site will be found to which a major part of the market activities will be transferred, the remainder staying at Covent Garden. If the L.C.C. has its way, the smaller the amount remaining at Covent Garden, the better for the L.C.C., and I largely agree. The more that can be hived off to some other site, preferably out of the centre of London, the better for all concerned. I do not think that that suits my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, but nevertheless, although I do not understand his argument—

Mr. Mellish: If my hon. Friend gives way I will tell him.

Mr. Reynolds: I shall be only too pleased to hear from my hon. Friend if he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
In Committee in another place, the Remembrancer, the equivalent of the City Clerk of the Corporation of London, was questioned on the idea of the temporary use of the market site and asked whether, if the problem of alternative accommodation were not solved in the five years envisaged, the Corporation would ask for an extension. He frankly answered that if there were no solution in five years an extension would seem to be inevitable. He was then asked if the site might not become permanent and, again speaking frankly, he said that if no other site were found it might well become permanent.
So it can be seen that at least in the back of the mind of the Corporation was the thought that this site might become permanent. It is the fact that it might become permanent which so troubles my constituents and those of my colleagues from Islington. One or two hon. Members laughed when reference was made to the feeling of many people in Islington. The Mayor of Islington called a conference on 1st July, and that conference was attended by representatives of the Air Training Corps, the Boys' Brigade, the Baptist Church, the Chamber of Commerce and Trade, the Church of England and a whole list of organisations, including Islington Trades Council. Our opposition to the Bill has the full support of all Transport and General Workers' Union branches in Islington, the people who will actually have this scheme foisted on them whether they like it or not.

They number very many because there are many bus garages in Islington, particularly in my constituency.
My connection with Islington has been for a matter of only eighteen months. I have previously lived all my life in West London. I thought that out there we had a bad housing problem. Since moving into Islington, I have realised that West London has no housing problems at all compared with those of the North London boroughs. Every Monday night, and on other nights, many people come to see me about housing problems. Islington Borough Council closed its housing list in 1956 with some 16,000 families on the list awaiting accommodation. That is not the full extent of the problem, because many of the families who come to see me are not on the list. Nor are they on the L.C.C.'s list. Yet they are living with one, two or three children in one room, or in one room and a scullery.
Those people are looking at the market site and now we have to tell them that the City Corporation, with the support of many other people, is to take that site from what Islington Borough Council and many other people have always considered its proper purpose, namely, the provision of houses and open spaces. Most of the organisations in Islington are against the proposals.
The position of the City Corporation has been dealt with to some extent this evening, but I hope that I will be forgiven for referring to it again. In paragraph (3) of the Preamble, the Bill says:
The Corporation have by right prescription charter and statute numerous rights duties and obligations with respect to the management and development of market facilities for the distribution of food for the London area and elsewhere.
That conveys the impression that the City Corporation is really the market authority for the Greater London area, but that is not the case. The City Corporation was given a charter to enable it to provide markets by King Edward III, and now owns five markets in the London area. The charter also provided that no one else was allowed to open markets within seven miles of the City without the Corporation's permission. Nevertheless, in 1670 Charles II decided to allow the Earl of Bedford to open a market at Covent Garden—an abrogation of the rights of the City Corporation in this


matter. For that reason the Corporation has never liked Covent Garden Market. The market does not belong to the Corporation, whereas most of the other London markets do; it is within seven miles of the City and the Corporation was not consulted about it.
That market is still owned by the descendants of the Earl and the City Corporation does not own or control it. It is not the market authority for the London area. But it does own the site in Islington, and in 1957–58 it brought before Parliament a Bill which would have enabled it to open a full horticultural market on the Metropolitan Cattle Market site in Islington, which would have been in competition with Covent Garden.
The Corporation tried to argue that this proposal was in accord with the recommendation of the Runciman Committee, which suggested a new horticultural market in the north of London. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) tried to tell us that it was by pure accident that somebody not connected with the City but with the Ministry of Agriculture noticed that the City Corporation owned these 30–40 acres in Islington, of which about nine acres stood vacant, and suggested that this site might be suitable for the storage of containers from Covent Garden Market. I am doubtful about this story. It seems to me that the present proposal by the City of London, while fitting in with the plans of the Ministry of Agriculture, is an attempt by the Corporation to get its foot into the door and get permission from this House to use that land for purposes ancillary to the provision of a general horticultural market, and that once it is there it will regard itself as having gone some way towards its objective of opening a full horticultural market on that site. It has never forgotten the presence of Covent Garden, and it hopes to get the chance to run its own market in North London. If it gets this first foot in the door we may well see it eventually given permission to use the site for horticultural purposes.
In this Bill, in the other place, it tried to obtain powers to use the place permanently, but the agreement has laid

it down that it will be used only for five years. The Minister has told us that he hopes to find a site in the near future, but my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has pointed out that if this possible permanent site is as near materialisation as the Minister has made out there is no point in pressing on with Clause 9 of the Bill. The Minister made no attempt to convince the House. He rushed through his speech quickly. I realise that the hour was late, but the subject merited more consideration, and we should have been given more information. The Minister told us of the imminence of finding this site, and in fact said that two sites were under consideration at the moment, and that one might be available almost immediately. Yet we have to pass the Clause because it is essential to have in reserve these powers to use the Metropolitan Cattle Market.
If the Minister is so worried about this problem and deems it essential to have something in reserve, I suggest that he and his Ministry bring in legislation to set up a market authority so that we can have a proper authority to do the job and not rely on this hotch-potch of bodies from various authorities, all trying to get a foot in the door and establish their position.
I do not blame them. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham "tut-tuts," but I would support the proposal of the L.C.C., because I think that the L.C.C. should be represented on such a market authority. It is the job of the Minister to provide legislation to enable a market authority to be set up and to take the necessary powers for the acquisition of sites. Then we could look round for a permanent site or some temporary provision. The Minister could give no idea of what his Ministry proposed to do regarding a market authority, and I feel that when we are discussing this legislation which is so closely linked to that matter we should be given such information. But we have not been told anything.
The Runciman Committee recommended that Brentford and Stratford Markets might be extended in order to relieve the load on Covent Garden Market. I had long known that the hours of one, two, three and four o'clock


existed, but the other day I found that five and six also were hours on the clock, because I went to have a look at the activities in Brentford Market. I found that there is still room for a certain amount of expansion there. Since the publication of the Runciman Report several firms have moved there from Covent Garden.
I also learned that everyone in the trade, including the union representatives retailers and tenants—I know that the position is the same at Covent Garden—considers that the best way to deal with the problem is to get rid of the chargeable containers altogether. The Runciman Committee recommended research by the Minister into the economics of the problem.
We are discussing storage facilities primarily for empty containers and the Minister cannot tell us what research has been done into the question of getting rid of the containers altogether, which would make the provision of storage completely unnecessary. It is ridiculous that produce coming to this country from the Continent should arrive in non-returnable containers while most of the produce grown in this country travels in containers which are chargeable and returnable. The only real answer is to get rid of the returnable container.
At present a retailer arrives at the market with his lorry loaded with returnable containers. He parks his lorry and goes round the stalls to order the produce he requires. Then he goes to have something to eat and two or three hours later he comes back to find that the empty containers have been removed and returned to the individual tenants, or to whatever form of central storage there is, and full containers have been loaded on to the vehicle ready for him to drive away.
What will happen when separate storage facilities are provided for the empty containers? A lot of tenants are worried about the matter. A retailer coming from South London will have to drive past Covent Garden at about four o'clock in the morning and go on to Islington where he will cause more annoyance to residents who are already annoyed by the presence of the abattoir in the borough. At Islington he will dispose of some of his empty containers. But he may also have containers belonging to tenants who are still at Covent

Garden with the approval of the L.C.C., and these containers will not be stored at Islington. So he will have to arrange for his lorry to be loaded in such a manner that these containers may be unloaded at Covent Garden.
At Islington there will be a queue of lorries all waiting to be dealt with at the same time, and there is a limit to the number of porters employed there and the amount of work they can do. Then the retailer will have to drive back to Covent Garden and get rid of the rest of his empty containers and get his lorry loaded with full containers. I do not think this procedure will relieve the congestion at Covent Garden at all.
I think, as was said by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), there is a distinct possibility that it will actually increase the congestion because a large number of retailers will have to go very close to Covent Garden Market on their northward journey, then turn and come back into the market. They will go past it and back in a couple of hours or so and so increase the congestion in the area. Talking of congestion, I notice that in 1931 there was congestion of the area around the Metropolitan Cattle Market and the City Corporation took powers to designate any part of the market as a car park and demand charges for it.
I hope we shall get some action from the Minister as a result of this debate even if this Bill goes through. I hope we shall have impressed on him the necessity of setting up a market authority and giving the maximum amount of encouragement to research in his Department towards getting rid of returnable containers so that we do not get this wretched problem of empties. If we do that we shall have done something by this debate even if the people of Islington are forced to accept what I regard as a first step towards the permanent use of this site for storage or as a full-scale horticultural market.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I do not propose to detain the House for long. I am sure hon. Members will be delighted to hear that. It is the duty of every hon. Member to defend his constituents' and his parochial interests. Any Member who fails to do that is not worthy of his membership of this House. If I may say so to my


non. Friends from Islington constituencies, they have certainly carried out their pledges to their constituents tonight. They have taken a long time to do it. I must say I have never heard so many arguments repeated so often by so few in such a great length of time.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Or so well.

Mr. Mellish: And so well; I concede that. I want this Bill supported and this Clause retained. My hon. Friends have defended the interests of their constituents, and I wish to defend the interests of those who work in Covent Garden. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that some of them live in Islington and do not agree with what he has said tonight. So it is not true that in what he said he carried with him 100 per cent. all who live and work in Islington.
To listen to Islington hon. Members one would believe that if we do not have this temporary use of this site for storage of empties from Covent Garden, almost overnight lovely flats, open spaces, schools and the dreamland that Islington has been rightly praying for for many years would spring up. If that were so and if this move would deprive Islington in the immediate future of the sort of thing they have been talking about, I should not be supporting the Bill, but that is not so. There is an abattoir on this site, taking up seven-eighths of it, and that will not be moved for a very long time. It belongs to the City Corporation.
I hope my hon. Friend will pay me the courtesy of listening to me after I have listened to him for about an hour. It is the opinion of the market porters and trade union representatives who work in Covent Garden Market that they do not want to leave Covent Garden. They want to stay on that site. I am asked to say that quite firmly tonight. They are anxious to agree with what the Runciman Committee put forward, that the site should be improved and conditions made better for those who work there. That is why they support London County Council and the City Corporation in this temporary move to the Islington site. I insist on this being understood by my hon. Friends: the logic is that if this move is made a considerable acreage in the market will become available for repairs, renovations and improvements,

and the market people certainly hope that as a consequence of the move to the Islington site their conditions will be improved and, for the first time in a long period, a start will be made on such matters as fire prevention and the general improvement of the market. I am asked to state clearly that because they have been given an assurance that this is a temporary move, they support the Bill.
My hon. Friends say, "We know what happens. We have had temporary hutments erected, supposed to last for two or three years, but they have lasted for many years. These temporary things end by becoming permanent." I cannot predict the future, except to say that if there is to be an alteration and the period is to be extended, there must be another Act of Parliament. Let us be clear about that. I pray that this wretched Government will not be in power in four or five years time. On this at least my hon. Friends and I can join: we hope that we shall not have another five years of Tory rule.
If that dreadful thing were to happen, I cannot imagine those flats being built on that site in the next five years. If my hon. Friends are fair, they will admit that. It will require an Act of Parliament to take the land away from the City Corporation; Islington and the London County Council have not the power to do it. Parliament will have to do it. One cannot put a C.P.O. on the City Corporation. If my hon. Friends want the land used to fulfil all their dreams, only an Act of Parliament can do it. Let us have some realism in the debate and stop talking in airy-fairy terms as if some odd trade unionist and some odd L.C.C. members have suddenly devised a plan which will hold my hon. Friends back from this great dream of theirs which lies just around the corner.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am sorry that my hon. Friend finds it necessary on this occasion to vote with the Tory Party, but I do not know why he is so despondent as to think that there will be another five years of Tory Government.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend has talked for so long that he has gone deaf. That is one thing I did not say. I said that I hoped and prayed that such a thing would not happen. My hon. Friend, with his lawyer's wit, has twisted that


into saying that I thought that the Tories would be re-elected. My hon. Friend is too much of a politician. I am a simple layman. He is indeed a lawyer-politician, which makes it worse—not a very good combination!
We want the Bill because the Covent Garden workers want better conditions of labour. They believe that this Bill means exactly what it says, that the move will be temporary and that eventually they will return to their own market, which will have been considerably improved as a result of the temporary move.
I join my hon. Friends in saying that the trade unions also want the establishment of a market authority. I ask the Minister not necessarily to reply about that tonight but to bear in mind that the sooner we have such an authority the better for all concerned.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend the Bill to conform with the terms of the Agreement between the Corporation of London and the London County Council, dated 6th April, 1959, relating to the storage of horticultural produce and containers, and to annex the Agreement as a Schedule to the Bill, in accordance with S.O. 157 (Agreement to be annexed to bill).
This is the last line of defence for the protection of the people of Islington. I very much hope that in view of the full debate we have had, both on Second Reading and on the Instruction, we can have a relatively short debate on this

We also want to see whether something can be done about the removal of empties. I agree with my hon. Friends that we appear to be able to make hydrogen bombs but not to think of a way to carton vegetables. We have still to use big wooden boxes. We talk about a site for the storage of thousands of empty boxes. It is an indictment on all of us that we have not yet devised a better way of handling produce.
I have no hesitation in supporting the City of London and the L.C.C. on the Bill. I am sorry to be opposed to my hon. Friends, but I think that the Covent Garden workers are equally important in this matter, and in any case I am convinced that my hon. Friends would not get what they want overnight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 58.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[11.50 p.m.


Fletcher, Eric
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Stonehouse, John


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parkin, B. T.



Hannan, W
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Albert Evans and Mr. Reynolds.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bingham, R. M.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Ramsden, J. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, M.


Body, R. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bryan, P.
Kirk, P. M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sharples, R. C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castleupon Tyne, N.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Webbe, Sir H.


Finlay, Graeme
Nairn, D. L. S.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Foot, D. M.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Nugent, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Godber, J. B.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Green, A.
Partridge, E.



Gresham Cooke, R.
Pott, H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Mellish and Mr. Rippon.

Motion, and that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) may find this Instruction acceptable. I will endeavour shortly to explain why.

The House has now given a Second Reading to the Bill and has rejected a Motion that Clause 9 should be omitted. The whole of the Bill will, therefore, come within the purview of the Committee. In view of the petitions that have been filed against the Bill, the Committee inevitably will have to consider the effect of the agreement.

I urge that the House should adopt this Instruction for two reasons. First,


it is essential that this Instruction be adopted if justice is to be done, as all hon. Members claim that they wish it to be done. The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), representing the London County Council, is very anxious that the people of Islington should be satisfied that this is a purely temporary measure for a temporary purpose. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster has also assured us that he is anxious that the people of Islington should recognise that this is purely a temporary matter. All that we are asking by this Instruction is that those pious aspirations should be enshrined in this legislation.

The other reason why I urge the House to accept this Instruction is that, in my submission, it would be contrary to the best principles of our Parliamentary traditions if it were not done. May I first say a few words in support of the second limb of my argument.

We now have before us a Bill whereby in Part III the City is asking for certain powers, both for the acquisition of land and for the use of land at the Metropolitan Cattle Market. But it is common ground that the powers which the City Corporation is asking Parliament to give will be limited and conditioned by an agreement which has been referred to in this debate, which was referred to in another place and extensively referred to in Committee in another place. If hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are sincere, they will be aware that the whole of the immediate future operations of the Covent Garden Market at the Caledonian Road site will be governed by a private agreement of 6th April of this year between the City Corporation and the London County Council.

I must invite the House to consider the terms of the agreement. Either it is intended that this agreement should operate, or it is not so intended. If it is so intended, it is important that the public should know what the agreement states, and the only way that I can make it public is by reading it because it is not referred to so far in any Parliamentary proceeding in this House. The agreement is a very odd document. It is dated 6th April, 1959, and I should like it to be a Schedule to the Bill, but

I do not know yet whether the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster intends to accept my suggestion.

The agreement defines the parties, the London County Council and the City Corporation. Then it provides in Clause 2:
The Corporation undertake not to oppose further the Council's Bill and the Council undertake not to oppose further the Corporation's Bill and each will forthwith withdraw the petition lodged against the Bill of the other.

Clause 3 provides:
The Corporation undertake to secure the amendment of Clause 9 … by the addition of the following subsections …
and it is as a result of Clause 3 of the agreement that at a late stage in the Bill the City Corporation added Clause 9 (2) and (3). Subsection (2) protects the overriding powers of the Corporation with regard to town planning. Subsection (3) says that the powers conferred by the Clause shall cease on the expiration of five years after the passing of the Act.

Now we come to the all-important Clause of the agreement. These words have deliberately not been read into the Bill, but I am anxious that they shall be understood. Clause 4 of the Agreement says this—because the subject matter is so complicated I will read the full text rather than attempt any paraphrase.
The Corporation undertakes that, subject to the extent provided by proviso (ii) of this subparagraph, any exercise by them of the powers of Clause 9 of the Corporation's Bill, if granted should only be for the purposes of providing temporary accommodation for the storage of empty containers which have been or are intended to be used in connection with the sale of horticultural produce by way of wholesale dealing in the market area, and for no other purpose".
I ask the House to mark carefully those words, "and for no other purpose". The Agreement goes on,
And further, that they will not exercise such powers as aforesaid unless they have previously obtained the consent of the Council thereto, which consent may be granted in relation only to parts of the Metropolitan Cattle Market and may be subject to such conditions as the Council may think fit dealing with the matters in the Appendix hereto.
Provided,

(i) That the Council shall not withhold its consent (but might impose such conditions as aforesaid) to the temporary use not exceeding six acres of the Cattle Market for


such purpose unless by the date on which the Council's Bill shall have been received the Royal Assent a suitable site for the provision of market storage facilities of a permanent nature shall have been found elsewhere, and,
(ii) that if the Council have previously approved in writing for the express purpose of this proviso the cubical content and the method of construction of any building or buildings to be erected or used by the Corporation, for the purpose of providing such temporary accommodation as aforesaid and the Minister has issued a certificate in respect thereof under Clause 8 of the Council's Bill then so long as the buildings are kept available for the Covent Garden empties as will secure that the Minister's certificate is not withdrawn the Corporation shall not be regarded as being in breach of the Agreement contained in this paragraph if containers which are not Covent Garden empties are received into such temporary accommodation so long as their reception is discouraged by the Corporation and the amount of such temporary accommodation occupied thereby is marginal and does not in any circumstances substantially exceed five per centum of the total cubic capacity of such temporary accommodation. It is agreed that the purpose of the immediately preceding proviso is to relieve the Corporation of the duty of examining the condition and place of origin of each container received into the temporary accommodation and not to permit any organised storage of containers other than Covent Garden empties.

(b) In applying for consent under this paragraph the Corporation shall furnish the Council with drawings and specifications of the buildings to be used or erected for the purpose of providing the said accommodation sufficient to enable the Council to consider the nature of the conditions to be attached to the consent.

So, the House will see that the City Corporation and the County Council went to considerable pains—and I acknowledge this readily—to ensure that if the Corporation obtained the powers they were seeking the use of the Islington site would not be limited merely to five years but would be very carefully circumscribed by this agreement.

I acknowledge readily to the hon. Lady and the L.C.C. the restrictions that the L.C.C. tried to impose on the City Corporation. It is because those restrictions are so important and vital for the protection of Islington that I am anxious that they should not merely be left in the agreement but should be written into the Bill. The reason is that if they are merely set out in the agreement they are not enforceable.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for the Cities of London and

Westminster wishes to intervene but, if necessary, I could give him the reference in the proceedings in another place where it was admitted by the counsel for the City Corporation that they were not enforceable. I will come back to that point in a moment because it is a very important point on which I am sure other hon. Members will wish to be satisfied.

Even if they were enforceable by the City Corporation or the L.C.C., they are certainly not enforceable by the Islington Borough Council, and it is the Islington Borough Council and the Islington people that I am seeking to protect. It is for their benefit that the Clause is inserted in the Bill. If the borough council had been made a party to the agreement, I should have been content, and if the hon. Gentleman or the Minister will give me an assurance that the Islington Borough Council will be made a party and that there could be no departure from the agreement without its consent, then I should equally be content; but in the absence of any such assurance I must ask the House to agree that the agreement should be scheduled to the Bill.

It is even more necessary to do that for this reason. If it is not scheduled to the Bill, the agreement, whether it be enforceable or not, could be varied at the wish of either party. If the City Corporation or the L.C.C. for any reason best known to themselves, and possibly for some quite adventitious reason in which the people of Islington had no concern and in which the people of Islington might again become the victims, decided to vary or amend the agreement—if pressure was brought by the Minister of Agriculture on them to do so they could amend it—the people of Islington would have no protection, no relief and no redress. Their only hope of protection is if the agreement is scheduled to the Bill.

I am particularly concerned about this, because the City Corporation—I am not sure whether this is true of the L.C.C. or not—has not attempted to conceal its desire to amend it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster disputes that. I think it is important that we should have this on record. I will give the House the reference in this context. I will explain why the City


Corporation is anxious that the agreement should not be scheduled to the Bill. It is anxious that it should not be scheduled for the express reason that it wants to vary it.

The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster shakes his head. I must, therefore, refer him to the printed statement which has been circulated for the purposes of this debate and is headed:
Statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Second Reading and against the proposed Instructions to the Committee.
If the hon. Member will look at that document he will find an allegation by the City Corporation. After a reference to the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and my name, the City Corporation blatantly and without compunction makes this very serious statement:
The Agreement referred to is one which does not in the submission of the Corporation require the sanction of Parliament and is not therefore an agreement to which Standing Order 157 applies.
Let us deal with that before going on to the other sentences. It is very important to get this right. Standing Order 157 says:
Where it is sought by any bill to give parliamentary sanction to any agreement, the agreement shall be annexed to the bill as a schedule thereto, and shall be printed in extenso."
I am anxious to give Parliamentary sanction to this agreement. That is the whole purpose of this proposed Instruction. Unless the agreement is a Schedule to the Bill, it will not have Parliamentary sanction.

This is a piece of arrogance on the part of the City Corporation. We know that it is the most arrogant local authority in the country.

Sir H. Webbe: Let us have argument and not abuse.

Mr. Fletcher: This is an agreement to which Standing Order 157 applies.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: The hon. Member will accept that there are two parties to the agreement. It is no good talking about the arrogance of the City Corporation when he knows perfectly well that the agreement has been thought out very carefully and

acceded to not only by the City Corporation but by the London County Council and members of both parties on that council.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Member trying to explain why the agreement should not be scheduled? Is he saying that it is intended that it should be varied? If it is intended to be varied, why should not that be stated so that everybody knows about it? Why should it be concealed from the Minister and the Government? Why is it that when on 9th April the Minister made his statement in support of the Bill he was not aware of this agreement? Why did he have to come and confess that in adopting the attitude he had adopted he had been unaware of the agreement?

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman challenge that?

Mr. Godber: No. I challenge the use of the word "confess," which seemed to me to be inappropriate.

Mr. Fletcher: We will return to that in a moment.
Paragraph 10 goes on to say that the agreement
… has been entered into between the Corporation as a market authority"—
which, incidentally, it is not—
and the London County Council as the local planning authority and sets out mutual undertakings between the parties covering the exercise of the powers now sought in the Bill.
I do not quarrel with that. It goes on:
The provisions of the Agreement are subject to variation by further agreement between the parties ….
That means that the agreement is not intended to be binding. That means that both parties claim the right to modify it without coming to Parliament, without consulting the people of Islington, without consulting anybody. Therefore, in its document, the City Corporation—

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member keeps on saying that the people of Islington have not been consulted. Do they not have many representatives on the London County Council?

Mr. Fletcher: And nor were they consulted.

Mr. Rippon: They received the agenda.

Mr. Fletcher: They are a minority. The people of London are relying on hon. Members to protect their interests, not on the London County Council. I am interested to know what the attitude of London County Council is, because that council must make up its mind, as must the leader of the Tories on the London County Council. Whether the L.C.C. intends the agreement to be binding or not, hitherto its attitude has been, "We have made an agreement with the City Corporation which protects the people of Islington. The people of Islington need not worry. We have made an agreement". That has been the attitude of the L.C.C. But what does the City Corporation say? It says something quite different. It says, "We have made an agreement with the London County Council, but we do not think that it is binding. We want to change it and we are going to try to change it."
That is what makes us suspicious. The Corporation knows that if it intended to honour and abide by this agreement—which, when it signed it, it believed was essential both for the people of Islington and the planning authority, the London County Council—it would have no objection to its being scheduled. The leader of the Tories in the L.C.C. says that the Islington members of the L.C.C. were consulted, but even if they were they would be powerless to prevent the L.C.C. from agreeing to some modification with the City Corporation, for some reasons perhaps not apparent to the interests of Islington.

Mr. Rippon: They have not protested.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, they have protested. They have protested throughout, and they are protesting now, and they will continue to do so. My hon. Friends and myself are here for the purpose of protesting. The City Corporation goes on to say:
The parties and the Corporation submit that it would give rise to grave problems of interpretation and administration if the agreement were now to be scheduled in the Bill and given statutory effect by confirmation by Parliament
That is an extraordinary statement. The agreement is quite plain. I have read

paragraph 4. It took months of negotiations for its precise terms to be agreed. If it is open to any ambiguity or difficulty of interpretation it must be so whether or not it is scheduled. It does not seem to be very ambiguous to me.
My hon. Friend says that it is flexible, but we do not want flexibility; we want rigidity. We want the agreement which has been made—on the basis of which petitions to another place have been withdrawn—observed and honoured; we do not want something flexible, which may be modified because the City Corporation wants it modified.
I want now to return to the intervention which the hon. Member made a moment ago, in which he appeared to throw doubt on the intentions of the City Corporation. I wish to refer to the evidence of Mr. Davie, the gentleman who produced this offensive paragraph 10 and who calls himself the Remembrancer. He was asked about this agreement by counsel, who said:
There was nothing to prevent you scheduling the agreement to the Bill, was there?
Mr. Davie said:
No.
He was then asked:
Why did you not do it
He said:
I do not think it occurred to me to do it. It did not seem a very suitable form.
That is a very odd statement—that it did not occur to him. He was then asked:
It may not be a specimen of the highest artistry of draftsmanship, but at any rate it did provide—and still does provide—that the Islington site should only be used for empties".
The answer was:
Subject to what the planning authority may say.
Mr. Davie was then asked by a Member of another place, on the Committee:
I think you said in your examination in chief that the reason for not scheduling the heads of agreement between your Corporation and the L.C.C. was to give you a possibility of amending the agreement if it became desirable.
The answer to this was:
Yes, my Lord, … Certain parts of your agreement seemed suitable for inclusion in the Bill and they have been put in. As to the agreement, as a whole, well, it would need some re-drafting … before it was scheduled.

Mr. Reynolds: Can my hon. Friend tell me from what page he is quoting?

Mr. Fletcher: I am reading from the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee, House of Lords, volume 4, and my copy is called, as they say in the House of Lords,"Die Veneris 24° Aprilis, 1959" and on page 27 there is this evidence.
They are not even squeamish about it. They make an agreement which they do not intend to honour and put it forward as an agreement for the protection of Islington and as a temporary measure, and so on.
Next, I want to deal with the Minister. I may have to be careful in what I say regarding the London County Council, but there is no need to pull any punches when dealing with the attitude of the Minister, and I wish to tell him what I think about it. This is a very sorry chapter of accidents, and the Minister should be a little careful before attempting to give the House guidance in a short and hurried speech. First, the Minister makes a statement saying that he welcomes the Runciman Report and is going to set up a market authority, and that he is going to introduce legislation, and so on. Then we have this agreement on 6th April.
Three days later—I am quoting from the minutes of evidence, document 1, page 9, the Minister makes a statement in this House in which he said:
In my statement last June, I said that the first step was to provide elsewhere facilities for storage of empty containers and bulk produce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th April, 1959; Vol. 603, c. 35.]
I will not read it all.
I shall indicate in a moment that the County Council is prepared to consider the temporary use of the Caledonian Market. Somewhere I think the right hon. Gentleman says that he supports the Bill. Three days before that statement, in which the Minister is talking about temporary facilities for the storage of empty containers and bulk produce, the City Corporation and the London County Council entered into an agreement. They said it did not matter what was in the Bill, they would make an agreement between themselves that whatever powers Parliament might give

them, the Islington site would be used only for empty containers and not for bulk produce. On 9th April the Minister said—I cannot find the appropriate page, I apologise for the delay—

Mr. A. Evans: Is my hon. Friend referring to the letter from the Ministry to the City Corporation of 10th October, 1958? In that letter the Ministry said:
We have agreed that certain views should be put before the City Corporation. I am therefore writing to you …
This is from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Clerk of the Corporation of the City of London—
to ask if you would be good enough to put before the City Corporation the proposal that part of the cattle market site at Islington should be used temporarily as a depot for empty containers".
I think that possibly my hon. Friend had that in mind.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I had that in mind and also another passage, which I think equally important, on page 27 of the first days evidence. That is what I want to remind the Minister of. It is where the Minister admits—he objects to the word "confesses"—that when he made the report to the House on 6th April he did not know of the agreement. This is what he said in a statement in another place:
On 7th April, 1959 …
That is this year—
the Minister submitted a report on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, 1959. In paragraph 5 of his report the Minister supported the Corporation's object in seeking powers in Clause 9 of the Bill to provide, temporarily, facilities for the storage of horticultural produce …
—in Islington:
The Minister stated that he considered that this site would be suitable for these purposes".
That was his statement in April. He went on to say a month later:
When the Minister submitted this report, he was unaware that on 6th April, 1959 the Corporation of the City of London and the London County Council had entered into an agreement under which the Corporation undertakes not to use the powers sought in Clause 9 except for the storage of empty containers. It was the Minister's understanding that the powers provided by Clause 9, if granted, would be used to provide storage accommodation


at Islington not only for empty containers, but also for bulk produce, and it was on this understanding that he supported the Bill.
The Minister supported the Bill believing that the Islington site was to be used as he said, both for storage of empty containers and for bulk produce. At the same time, the City Corporation and the L.C.C. were making an agreement binding themselves that the site would be used only for storing empty containers. A few days later the Minister was confessing that he supported the Bill on an entirely faulty understanding of the position. We therefore ask what is the position? Is the Minister now supporting the Bill because he wants the agreement honoured, or is he supporting the Bill in the hope that the agreement will be dishonoured? I hope we shall have a definite reply to that question from the Minister or the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster.
Is the Minister supporting the Bill because he wants the agreement to be honoured or because he hopes it will be dishonoured? That is the dilemma the Government are in, and there is only one escape from that dilemma, and that is to do the honest, clean, respectable thing and schedule the agreement to the Bill so that Parliament and the public, including the citizens of Islington, may know what is in it and what their protection is. It is a most unsatisfactory way of doing business to bring these Private Bills before Parliament, asking for wide powers and then making hole-in-the-corner agreements behind the back of Parliament, agreements which certain parties put forward as binding promises and other parties regard at the same time as agreements which can be amended, changed, varied and whittled away. That is not the way for a local authority or anyone else to ask for Parliamentary powers.
We are a legislative assembly. We ought not to grant people legislation to acquire land and become market authorities and do all these things unless the full facts are open and above board. It is an abuse of the traditions of Parliament and an abuse of the position of Parliament for the City Corporation to ask for powers, some of which it does not intend to use, some of which it intends to use only on conditions and some of which it says it will abrogate if

another Bill does not go through. May I also refer to paragraph 5 of the agreement? That is holding a pistol to the head of Parliament, because it says:
If the Council's Bill and the Corporation's Bill become law in substantially their present form the Council undertake not to exercise the powers sought by Clause 6 to establish a depot ….
There is another provision,
The Corporation undertake to withdraw Clause 9 of the Corporation's Bill if Clauses 8 and 9 of the Council's Bill or either of them fail to become law in substantially their present form or, if the Corporation's Bill passes the Committee stage in the Second House before the Council's Bill shall have passed all its stages in both Houses, the Corporation undertake not to exercise the powers sought under the said Clause 9 of the Corporation's Bill if the said Clauses 8 and 9 of the Council's Bill or either of them fail to become law in substantially their present form.
Is not that an astonishing way in which to treat the House—to ask for powers but to make this private agreement and to conceal it from the Minister, leading him to make a statement in another place which he has afterwards recognised that he would not have made if he had known of the agreement. They then ask the House to pass the Bill but are not prepared to schedule the agreement, part of which contains terms which are literally holding a pistol to Parliament and saying that if we do not pass the Bill in a particular form, certain powers will not be exercised, and if one Bill does not pass its Committee stage before another passes into law, something else will happen. These are matters which ought to be printed in the Bill, not concealed in a private document in such a way that nobody knows what will happen. This is contrary to the ordinary decencies of legislative procedure.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has moved this Motion so ably and fully that he has not left me a great deal to add to the information which he has given the House. This is my first venture into Private Bill legislation, and I am learning something new about it every moment. In my innocence I thought that if some corporation or other


organisation sponsored a Bill before Parliament to carry out certain actions, once they obtained those powers they would normally expect to exercise them. It has surprised me to discover that apparently it is almost normal practice for sponsors of Private Bills, having obtained certain powers from this House and from another place, to have agreed in the meantime with somebody else not to exercise the powers, or to exercise only part of them.
We have spent nearly six hours discussing the City of London (Various Powers) Bill and we have still to look at the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. No matter what we say, however, these two promoters have agreed between themselves not to use certain of the powers in the Bills, once they have obtained them. This House has given a Second Reading to a Bill and has been told that, by agreement, certain powers in it are not to be used. It is more than possible that the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) would not have supported the Bill but for that agreement, and that probably applies also to other hon. Members. Therefore, it is correct to argue that because people have supported the Bill due to the provisions of the agreement the agreement itself should be added to the Bill and the Bill amended where necessary to conform to that agreement.
My hon. Friend has already mentioned the Minister's surprise in suddenly finding, when he had already prepared the statement he was to submit, that apparently without consultation with him the City Corporation and the L.C.C. had entered into this agreement. Is that agreement going to be kept? If the agreement is between the City Corporation and the L.C.C., in certain circumstances it would not be up to the L.C.C. to resist any amendment.
The City Corporation, in its submission in the other place, has already made clear that it may well be necessary to alter the agreement. Whether as time passes that advice may be taken, we do not know. Yet the Borough of Islington is informed by the L.C.C. that it need not worry greatly about the provisions of this Bill because it has the agreement with the City Corporation on how it may

be operated. But one signatory to that agreement has already let it be known publicly that as time passes it may wish to see alterations in the agreement.
What is more important is that the Minister himself, in a statement to a Committee of another place, assented rather reluctantly to the amendment of the City's Bill, with the five-year limitation on the site of the Metropolitan Cattle Market. He desires to secure relief of congestion for the Covent Garden market areas as soon as possible, and he says that he hopes the L.C.C. and the Corporation of the City of London will reconsider the terms of their agreement with a view to allowing facilities at Islington for the storage of produce for Covent Garden as well as empty containers. We have been assured that under the agreement only empty containers will be stored there, yet we have the Minister wanting them to alter the agreement to allow for the storage of full containers as well. I doubt whether once the City Corporation, the tenants of the market, and the Minister start to work on the poor L.C.C. the L.C.C. will be able to hold for long to the agreement as it stands. The Minister clearly wants the full containers there as well; the City Corporation would like to see the site turned into a full horticultural market and would like to see full containers there, so is the L.C.C. going to be able to stand out for long in the face of dissatisfaction with the agreement, as well as pressure from the Minister at the same time?
We feel that this agreement will not last for long. In fact, the City Corporation and the L.C.C. have already discussed the matter and point out an amendment to the agreement in certain circumstances, namely, that if a permanent site is found, while it may not be available for some years, in the interim period the L.C.C. would agree to allow 25 per cent. of the containers there to be full ones; that is, once a permanent site has been found.
As is known by everyone who has discussed the matter at length, however, once a permanent site is found, there is a distinct possibility, especially if existing buildings are demolished and new ones built, that it may be five or six years before such a site is actually available


for use as a permanent site. In the meantime, it is possible that under pressure there may be amendment of the agreement, which, Islington has been informed, will safeguard its position, which will mean that in certain circumstances there could be storage of full containers there for several years.
The two authorities have entered into the agreement. It has been suggested in the debate tonight that it will safeguard Islington's position to a certain extent. Some hon. Members have supported the Bill because of their knowledge of what the agreement contains. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that once we have passed the Bill, the agreement may be altered as a result of pressure from various sources.
My hon. Friends who represent Islington constituencies and I are convinced that the only way to make sure that the Bill is operated in the way that we have been told, to make sure that only empty containers are stored in the Metropolitan Cattle site at Islington, which is what the London County Council has reluctantly agreed to and what the City Corporation has said that it is satisfied with, and to make sure that pressure from the Minister is not used to make the parties alter the agreement, is to amend the Bill to conform with it and to make the agreement a Schedule to the Bill, so that it has the force of law in exactly the same way as the other contents of the Bill

12.47 a.m.

Mr. A. Evans: The House should agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is right in his proposal that the agreement, which, I suppose, few Members here have seen, should be clearly laid before the Committee of the House which in due course will consider the Bill if and when it goes through. The House of Commons would wish the Committee, which the House itself has appointed, to have the agreement before it.
We have a surprising position over the City Corporation's Bill and the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, which the House will be considering later. These two separate public bodies are each promoting a Private Bill which has been dealt with first in the other place and has now reached this House. Behind these two

Bills there is this private agreement, which has been made between the two authorities and which will limit the powers that the House is being asked to give to each of the two authorities.
I am told that this kind of agreement has been made behind the back of Parliament. I have heard that phrase used in this connection. I do not like it. I do not like to think that any public bodies act behind the back of Parliament. We are told, however, that these two authorities have entered into this agreement, which would prevent the powers given by Parliament from being used. This seems to my simple mind to be rather objectionable. To people more learned in the law than I it may be an everyday occurrence, but, looking at it from the ordinary man's point of view, it seems to me to be quite surprising and objectionable that two public bodies should so arrange their private affairs that they will seek to do something other than that which Parliament intended.
If Parliament gives a power to the City Corporation for which the City Corporation's Bill asks, Parliament intends the City Corporation to use that power along the lines that the Corporation has intended. If Parliament gives the London County Council certain powers, presumably Parliament intends that the London County Council needs those powers and will use them. Even if this is an accepted practice amongst lawyers, I hope that it will not be a practice which is encouraged by Parliament. I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the House would say that this kind of private treaty to limit the operation of what Parliament decides is the kind of thing that might be necessary in some circumstances but one which we should not encourage. I hope that, in order to make it clear that we consider that this kind of practice should not be encouraged, we shall allow the Committee of this House to have this agreement before it as a Schedule to the Bill.
The Chairman and Members of the Select Committee in another place found themselves in great confusion. They had great difficulty in understanding exactly what these two bodies were trying to do because of this private agreement between them. Indeed, the Chairman of the Select Committee in another


place said that in his fifty years' experience in dealing with private legislation he had never met the like of the complications surrounding these two Bills and the private agreement behind the parties. I hope that in order that the complications which faced the Committee in another place shall not confront the Committee of this House when it considers these two Bills, we shall agree tonight to instruct that the agreement should become a Schedule to the Bill. It would make for clarity and would clear up the suspicion that these two authorities are acting behind the back of Parliament.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Godber: I will endeavour to deal briefly with this point, although I was accused by an hon. Member of being too brief previously. I would hope, however, to state the Government's attitude to the suggestion that this agreement should be annexed as a Schedule to the Bill. I touched on some aspects of it in my previous reply in response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
I want to make quite clear that the Government would not wish to see this agreement annexed as a Schedule to the Bill. We feel that there is need for some amendment to the terms of the agreement, and that has been made abundantly clear in the second report which the Minister made to the Committee which considered this matter in another place.
One hon. Member has read extracts from it and I will not at this hour read it again; but the important thing is that the Minister feels that if we are to get the full benefit from the use of this site it is important that we should have some provision for the storage of full, as well as empty, containers. We have made no secret of this at all, and

if I may say so, I was a little surprised at the use of the word "confession" which was used by, I think, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Eric Fletcher).
What has not been brought to the attention of the House is that the Committee in another place which considered this matter made a specific reference to this very point. In the last words of the final Report of the Select Committee, it is stated that the Committee
is strongly of the opinion that the Agreement by the City Corporation and the London County Council should be amended so that the Cattle Market shall be used for dual purpose storage".
This is what we want, but if this agreement was annexed to the Bill this would be impossible. We should give consideration, however, to the recommendation of the Committee of another place. Let us allow the Bill to go forward to a Committee of this House without any modifications, allowing that Committee to consider the matter impartially and afresh.

Mr. Reynolds: Do I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us that he accepts the words of the Committee in another place and that, once the Bill is through, he will try to persuade the L.C.C. to agree to the use of the site for storage of full containers?

Mr. Godber: We are anxious that the two councils should voluntarily agree to some amendment of this particular agreement. In fact, there is no secret, as I have said, about our wanting some modification to provide for a percentage, at least, of the containers which go to this site being full. That is the recommendation which the Minister has made, and it is abundantly clear in the second report, from which I think the hon. Member quoted himself.

Question put and negatived.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you have called me because of the Motion standing in my name that the Bill be read this day three months hence.
I think that this Motion was put on the Order Paper because it was felt desirable that those of us who oppose the City Corporation Bill should be able to discuss the London County Council (General Powers) Bill at the same time. The matters with which my hon. Friends who represent Islington constituencies are concerned are to some extent involved in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill as well, but I know that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) wishes to speak, and I do not want to detain the House any longer. I feel that I have already taken up far too much of the time of the House on the City Corporation Bill. Unfortunately, I have to stay because I have the Adjournment debate, but in view of what I have already said I do not pro-pose to add anything to the observations which I made on the earlier Bill.
Therefore, as a matter of form so that the debate may continue, I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months."

1.1 a.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I beg to second the Motion.
I am very glad to second the Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has moved, but I am afraid that I may take a little longer than he has done. I take it that the main battle of the evening is now over and those of us who have been waiting for an opportunity to say something about some of the other provisions of the L.C.C. Bill may now have a chance to do so, during which time, no doubt, other warriors of the debate will have gone home. I can only hope that the

dreams of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) are haunted by visions of 40 acres of empties in his own constituency, where clearly they ought to be, and I hope he wakes up with a start in the middle of the night and imagines himself canvassing round the dreary wastes of empties and finding nowhere for his constituents to move.
The point which I wish to raise and to which, if possible, I should like a reply is this. I have looked through the Bill and observed with disappointment and dismay that the L.C.C. has not taken this opportunity to ask for powers to deal with one of the most serious problems in some London boroughs, that of the unrestricted and uncontrolled spread of clubs. The problem is a very acute one in some areas. It is a ludicrous anomaly when the authorities have powers to control all sorts of things under planning regulations—

The Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): We cannot debate something which is not in the Bill.

Mr. Parkin: I am startled by that Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I had always understood that on Second Reading one could object that a Bill was not wide enough. The London County Council (General Powers) Bill asks for general powers, I submit. I also submit that I am seconding a Motion that the Second Reading be deferred, and I would have set out as my grounds for supporting the proposal that the Bill was not wide enough and that it had not taken general powers wide enough to cover one point of great importance to my constituency. I had thought that, following the usual practice of the House on the Second Reading of a Bill, and particularly on a Motion to defer the Second Reading, one might well complain that the Bill was not wide enough.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can complain that the Bill is not wide enough, but we cannot have a detailed debate on other proposals altogether outside the Bill.

Mr. Parkin: No, Sir, of course; but the subsequent course of debate is under your control. I was not attempting to lead the House into a general discussion of details, but I submit that it is within the rules of order on Second Reading


for me to express my disappointment that the Bill has not covered an issue which everyone in London concerned with the problem had hoped to see covered in a Bill of this kind.
At this stage, I do not want to make a long speech on the evils of the unrestricted spread of clubs. That is perfectly well known. It is also perfectly well known that under the provision of the miserable and pusillanimous, sweep-it-under-the-carpet Street Offences Bill introduced by the Government last year—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We obviously cannot discuss that Measure.

Mr. Parkin: No, Sir, but one of its consequences is to make the problem of clubs more acute and to make it more urgent that the L.C.C. should take some interim powers. I am not tonight suggesting that the L.C.C. could have covered the whole problem in a Bill of this kind. I am suggesting that it could have taken the very simple power of bringing the licensing and registration of these clubs within the regulations of the planning authorities.
That would have given it an interim power to stop the undesirable developments which are beginning to take place and would have given them the opportunity to check an undesirable tendency. I am not attacking all clubs, but it is well known that in persent circumstances it is only too easy to open a club and to make it the centre for the commercialisation of vice, to the great annoyance of residents and the dismay and bewilderment of the local civic authorities and the worry and concern of the police.
I am greatly disappointed that the L.C.C. has not thought it worth while to introduce that simple provision in this Bill, and that is why I second the Motion to defer the Second Reading of the Bill until the L.C.C. has had time to reconsider the matter and introduce a Clause to that effect which, although it will not solve the problem, will at least give the L.C.C. extra power which is desirable until some general legislation is introduced to deal with the problem as a whole.

1.8 a.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: At this very late hour, I do not wish to detain the House a moment longer than is necessary, but it is unfortunate that we began the Second Reading of the London County Council Bill only at about one o'clock. There is scarcely time to give all the Clauses of the Bill the consideration they deserve.
However that may be, it is fair comment to say that within the debate on the previous Bill one industry has been made the shuttlecock of various rivalries between competing local authorities jealous of their prestige and their rights for the good government of various parts of London, as they see it.
The industry which has been the victim of these rivalries has been the horticultural industry. I wish in as few words as possible to state the headings of my objections to what is proposed in the Bill. They arise for the most part on Part III of the Bill, and they relate, first, to the effect of the Bill upon the grower-wholesalers and other users of Covent Garden Market. They will come under control for the first time, which could mean the absolute prohibition of their keeping empty containers in Covent Garden Market. It is a fair presumption to say that not all those who apply for a licence under the Bill will be granted permission to keep their containers there. There is bound to be discrimination as between one trade and another, which will inevitably lead to some dislocation of the horticultural marketing arrangements round and about the market.
Furthermore, there is provision for storage of containers to be made on a new site. I do not want to go into the details of where that site is—that question has been fully dealt with in our previous debate—but it is an unsatisfactory feature from the point of view of the organisation of the horticultural industry and its marketing arrangements that the storage of containers is to be temporary only. That will inevitably cause uncertainty as to the future conditions under which the industry can organise itself as well as causing some additional expense, which may reflect itself in higher prices to the consumer. The producers want to avoid this at all costs.
Another point of criticism is that under the Bill the outside scheme of storage on a new site is to be limited. It is within the recollection of the House that the Minister of Agriculture clearly envisaged the provision of a storage depot on a new site. It was to contain empties, but it was also to be a storage for bulk produce. It was to be a pioneer scheme, on a different marketing system for Covent Garden Market itself, under which much of the pressure upon space could be relieved and some produce sold at Covent Garden on sample while the bulk was later hauled from the new outside overflow site. A system which places a restriction upon the use of the outside site, in that it is to contain only empties, will prevent the new pioneer scheme being set up for at least five years, during which time there will be continued uncertainty.
As for the licensing system, it is true that any aggrieved applicant who is refused a licence may appeal first to the magistrates' courts and thence to quarter sessions. But if consideration is given to the nature of the pleas made to those courts it will be appreciated that a court of law is not a very suitable body to adjudicate upon the question whether an individual is to be granted a licence, or where he is to keep his empties. It is analogous to a planning function, and I should have thought it more suitable if an appeal could have been laid from the county council straight to the Minister which he could settle after ordering an inquiry by one of his inspectors.
Although in connection with the site of the former Caledonian Market the facilities are limited to five years, the powers obtained by the London County Council under this Bill are permanent. In the Bill there is no limitation. So the horticultural industry is to come under the control of the London County Council. I am a great admirer of the county council in most of its activities, even though it has been conducted for a long time under the aegis of a political party which differs from the one to which I belong. But were I looking for an ideal type of marketing authority to control and regulate in detail and to adjudicate upon the claims of traders, producers and growers of country produce, I do not think I should

select the council of the most urbanised area in the world. These Clauses should not have been inserted in the Bill now. We should have waited until the Minister set up the Covent Garden marketing authority which is contemplated in the Runciman Report.
I wish to say something about Part VI and particularly about Clause 28 which empowers the L.C.C. to reduce in size, in fact virtually to abolish, one of the precious open spaces so much cherished by the London public. I am not made more pleased by the prospect when I see that it is apparently for the purpose of building a so-called national theatre. I do not think there is any case to be made now for taking an open space in order to build another theatre, when we are told that existing London theatres have to close down because it does not pay to present plays in them. There is no greater supporter, in spirit, of the English drama than I—although I am afraid that I am not a frequent attender at the theatre—but I do not wish a theatre to be built on one of our open spaces when open spaces are all too few.
I do not intend to enlarge on other matters in the Bill but I think the proposals regarding horticulture are ill-advised and that it would have been much better to have waited until the Minister brought forward his proposals for a marketing authority.

1.21 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am deeply sorry to be keeping the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) from his Adjournment debate, but I hope he will bear with me for a moment while I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew).
I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend and I tried to cover some of them in an earlier debate. I only want to say to him that, of course, my right hon. Friend is as anxious as he to go forward with plans for Covent Garden and to obtain the permanent basis which we so much require. As I explained at an earlier stage, we look on this temporary provision as an insurance. I assure my hon. Friend once more that it is our firm


intention to go forward for the permanent provision at the earliest possible moment.
As to the other matters in his speech, I realise the difficulties that one or two points in the Bill will provide for some growers and traders, but it is the hope of my right hon. Friend that the London County Council will be as reasonable as it can be in the way it uses these licensing powers and that it will take proper account of the needs of horticulturists. I entirely share the view that horticulturists should be given every possible help in the marketing of their produce. I was very interested to see a Motion on this subject which my hon. Friend has placed on the Order Paper. I assure him that what is said there reflects very much the view of my right hon. Friend, and that we have the needs and desires of these people very much at heart.

1.24 a.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I wish to answer what was said by the hon.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P Agnew) about Clause 28. I assure him that it is not a question of taking an open space. The council dedicated as an open space this piece of the embankment, which was regained from the river a few years ago. All that would happen is that the proposed building would encroach by 11 or 12 feet on the riverside wall. The public would not lose this open space because a colonnade would be built and the council would require public access to the area always to be available.

It is a very small portion which seemed necessary for the plans. I cannot agree about not wanting a theatre there. I personally want to see a theatre on that beautiful site and I should be pleased if the Government would come forward with the money quickly. We do not want that site unbuilt on for long and the land has been promised for a national theatre.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 45; Noes 0.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[1.25. a.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Ronton, D. L. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Body, R. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooman-White, R. C.
Kirk, P. M.
Sharples, R. C.


Bryan, P.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Peterafield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Macpheraon, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thornton-Kemeley, Sir Colin


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebom)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Nairn, D. L. S.
Webbe, Sir H.


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Finlay, Graeme
Nugent, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, D
Pott, H. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Godber, J. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Green, A.
Ramsden, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Redmayne, M.
Mrs. Freda Corbet and




Mr. Dudley Williams.




NOES


NIL




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Stonehouse and Mr. Reynolds,

POLICE STATION, HORNSEY ROAD (INCIDENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman- White.]

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I must apologise to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that he should have been kept waiting until such a late hour for this debate, but, as he and the House are aware, this is a matter of great public importance and I therefore make no apology for raising it at this late hour.
On Tuesday, 19th May, two of my constituents, Mr. Thomas Halloran of 53, Isledon Road, and Mr. Patrick Joseph Cox of 17, Travers Road, called to see me. They gave me a detailed and graphic account of how, on the previous Sunday evening, 17th May, they had been brutally beaten, disfigured and kicked by a police sergeant and two or three police constables at Hornsey Road police station, with the result that on their release in the early hours of 18th May, their wounds and injuries had to be treated and dressed at the Royal Northern Hospital.
They had been taken to Hornsey Road police station, arising out of an incident at the Clarence public house, Seven Sisters Road. Mr. Halloran's condition when I saw him showed obvious signs that he had recently suffered considerable violence. His eyes were badly swollen, he had cuts on his face and forehead, and other bruises on his face. His neck showed signs of serious bruising and he complained of having been kicked in the ribs by one of the police officers after he had been knocked on the floor. I interviewed Mr. Cox separately. The injuries of which he complained were less serious, but he had been present during the assault on Mr. Halloran and confirmed that Mr. Halloran had been held by two police constables while two or three others proceeded to punch and batter him until he collapsed on the ground, when he was violently kicked by one of the officers.
Having received particulars of the incident immediately after the event, I thought it my duty to investigate it as far as I was able to do so.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Two o'clock till this day.